Since I did most of my actual growing up in south Arkansas, I found myself digging into Amy Chozick’s recent New York Times profile of Mike Beebe, the current Democratic governor of Arkansas. Born to a teenage waitress living in a tar-paper shack, Beebe never met his father. As a child, he and his mother moved constantly: from Arkansas to Detroit, then to Chicago, then to St. Louis, then to Houston, and then to New Mexico. They eventually returned to Arkansas, where Beebe graduated from high school at the age of 17.

After earning a college degree from Arkansas State and a law degree from the University of Arkansas, thus demonstrating an early instinct for straddling divisive fault lines, Mike Beebe was elected to the Arkansas State Senate in 1983, where he served for 20 years. His popularity was such that he never faced an opponent for reelection. After then serving as Attorney General for four years, Beebe was elected governor in 2007, a post he will relinquish in January because of term limits.

Chozick writes, speaking of Beebe, “Most people in Arkansas agree that few politicians have played so well for so long to so many, perhaps not even Bill Clinton.” She goes on to say that Beebe has won votes among Walmart millionaires and among poor row-crop farmers. Even as the state has shifted right in recent years, Beebe has remained remarkably popular across the political spectrum. In 2010, as the Tea Party pummeled Arkansas Democrats in congressional and state elections, Beebe swept all 75 counties in Arkansas on his way to re-election. With a current approval rating at 72%, Beebe is the most popular Democratic governor in the nation.

What’s the secret of Beebe’s success? Two factors stand out. First, he appears to practice politics in the oldest and best sense of that word: politics as the care of souls. Perhaps because of his hardscrabble upbringing, he seems remarkably and deeply concerned about the people of Arkansas, especially those who are struggling. Perennially ranked next-to-last on national indicators of well-being (a popular quip in the state is “Thank God for Mississippi!”), Arkansas has made significant progress under Beebe’s leadership – in healthcare, economic growth, and especially education. For the past two years, Arkansas has been ranked fifth in the nation in overall K-12 education.

The second secret of Beebe success, however, is probably more important. Unlike Bill Clinton, Beebe has always said that he has no ambitions to hold office outside Arkansas. Because he has been there so long and knows it so well, he says, he can actually get more done and have a greater impact.

Beebe’s long commitment in the same direction is worth thinking about. Being deeply rooted gives you the sustenance to grow stout branches and develop strength to endure storms. To use a different metaphor, if you have a deep keel, you can take on lots of sail, take risks, and explore new territory.

The farmer-poet Wendell Berry knows something about long commitments. His family has tilled the soil in Henry County, Kentucky for six generations. He wrote this poem for his wife, to whom he has been married for 57 years. Berry writes:

Sometimes hidden from me in daily custom and in trust,

so that I live by you unaware as by the beating of my heart,

Suddenly you flare in my sight,

a wild rose blooming at the edge of thicket,

grace and light where yesterday was only shade,

and once again I am blessed,

choosing again what I chose before.

Often the most important things in our lives remain hidden in plain sight, obscured by the rush of routine or the pull of progress. Sometimes, the most we can do is simply focus on the next thing, whatever is most urgent. In so doing, we slowly become oblivious to what’s most important. At other times, we succumb to the temptation of believing that progress means moving on, or moving up, or moving out. We forget that, in choosing what we have already chosen, we may have chosen well.

Make no mistake: sometimes we choose badly and end up in the wrong relationship, or the wrong job, or the wrong school, or the wrong town. We embrace the wrong set of values or pursue the wrong purposes. When that happens, we do need to move on, or move up, or move out. And sometimes we need help to make the move.

But we also need to learn the virtue of staying put and staying true, of choosing again what we chose before. Choose your home again. Choose your friends again. Choose the one you love again. Choose your commitments again. Choose again what you chose before.

My husband and I got hitched this past June, which I can honestly say was one of the happiest and most transcendent experiences of my life. However, we both agree that whereas the wedding was awesome, the wedding planning process was decidedly not awesome. Navigating the wedding industry can be quite frustrating, in part because of the relentless pressure to spend fantastic amounts of money on anything and everything wedding-related. As a relationships researcher, I was particularly interested in, and baffled by, the rhetoric that many vendors use in order to sell wedding services and products.

Many of the sales pitches boil down to the idea that couples in love should want expensive weddings. Vendors will argue that if you truly love your partner, you should be willing to go to any lengths (at least monetarily) to properly celebrate that love on your “special day”. For example, maybe you want to show your love for your partner by getting a fancy gilded guestbook for your guests to sign, or personally monogrammed hand towels for the reception bathroom. Sometimes the pitch even goes so far as to suggest that an expensive wedding guarantees you true love. With a perfectly straight face, some vendors will tell you that your wedding day will “set the tone” for your marriage, and you should be willing to do anything it takes to start your marriage off “on the right foot”. For example, perhaps you should set the right tone by hiring a 20-piece orchestra for your ceremony, or limos to transport all your guests to the reception.

Examples of this sort of advertising can be traced back to the 1940s, when De Beers diamond company launched their infamous “Diamonds are forever” campaign. Indeed, many of the social norms around marriage proposals—such as the arbitrary benchmark of two months’ salary that men should spend on an engagement ring—come from De Beers’ successful advertising efforts. Like the wedding industry more broadly, the diamond industry relies on the premise that spending a great deal of money shows love for your partner and predicts relationship success. This idea is widespread in our culture, likely because it is a marketer’s dream: who wouldn’t pay any price to ensure marital bliss? What’s less clear is how accurate these notions are. To what extent do high levels of spending actually predict marital bliss?

For decades, the idea that spending a fortune on engagement rings and weddings is good for your relationship has gone untested and largely unchallenged. But recently, a pair of economists put De Beers et al. to the test.¹ The researchers recruited over 3000 ever-married participants (i.e., people who were either currently married or had been married at some point) to complete an online survey. They asked participants a wide range of questions about their marriage, such as how long they dated before marriage, their age at marriage, their feelings and attitudes at the time of the wedding proposal, whether they had children, and, critically, the costs of their engagement ring and their wedding. Participants who were unable to remember how much their wedding cost were able to report that, rather than provide an inaccurate figure. Participants were also asked about several demographic factors such as education, income, religion, and race, so that the researchers could control for these factors in their analyses. Most importantly, participants were asked about their marital status and marriage duration, so that the researchers could see what factors are associated with marital outcomes.

The results did not lend support to the wedding industry’s mantra. In fact, any reliable associations that the researchers found were in the opposite direction from what marketing would suggest. For example, people who had spent between $2000-4000 on an engagement ring had significantly higher rates of divorce compared to people who spent between $500 and $2000. Similarly, couples who spent less than $1000 on their weddings had significantly lower rates of divorce even compared to people who spent between $5000 and $10,000. People who reported having spent more than $20,000 on their wedding tended to have higher divorce rates compared to those who spent less. Furthermore, any cases where spending more was associated with better relationship outcomes were explained by demographic factors like having a high income. In other words, it wasn’t that spending more made things better. Other factors were responsible.

It gets worse. The researchers found that high levels of wedding-related spending—for example, having a wedding that cost more than $20,000—was associated with stress over wedding-related debt. The researchers posit that this stress may help to account for some of the negative associations between high spending and marital outcomes. Couples spend money on their wedding that they don’t have, which later puts a strain on their marriage when they have trouble paying off the resulting debt.

These results suggest that if anything, high levels of wedding-related spending have a negative effect on marriage, not a positive one. Of course, this study is cross-sectional, meaning that the researchers did not follow people over time. It would be great to see a longitudinal study where newlyweds first report on their engagement ring and wedding spending, and are then followed over time to see who splits up.

However, the researchers did make a commendable effort to rule out alternative explanations for their results. For example, a problem with cross-sectional studies is that people don’t always have a good memory of events that took place years ago (what psychologists call a “retrospective bias”). To help account for this, the researchers also tested their effects among only the people who were married after 2008. If biased reporting produced the effects, this subsample of participants, who presumably had a better recollection of how much they actually spent, should produce weaker findings. But instead, the researchers obtained the same results. The very large and relatively representative sample also lend credibility to their findings: 3000 participants is a lot of participants.

I think the takeaway message here is that the wedding industry’s primary objective is to make money. They are not in the business of doling out useful relationship advice. So for a couple trying to plan their wedding, it is probably wise to take the wedding industry’s messages with a very large grain of salt. Your chances at marital bliss are not riding on whether or not you get personalized miniature Champaign bottles for your guests to bring home with them, or whether the bride gets a deluxe skin treatment every month for a year leading up to the wedding. The amount of money you spend on your wedding is not an indication of how much you love your partner, nor is it a way to improve your marriage’s future prospects, no matter what the bridal magazines have to say about it.

Follow Samantha on Twitter or visit her website.

This article was originally written for Science of Relationships: a website about the psychology of relationships that is written by active researchers and professors in the field.

1. Francis, A. M., & Mialon, H. M. (2014). ‘A diamond is forever’ and other fairy tales: The relationship between wedding expenses and marriage duration. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2501480 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2501480.

We know that children and teenagers are particularly susceptible to advertising. We are aware that they are easily influenced by peer pressure. We see that they have a self-image is fragile and is still be molded. Parents, educators and advertising executives are all aware of these simple truths.

Parents have also been reassured that much progress has been made over the course of the past decade to limit advertising of cigarettes and alcohol to teenagers. In fact, a recent blog and article from Pediatrics assures parents that, “Scenes with smoking [are] to a much lesser extent on prime-time television.” (Strasburger, 2010). The article does caution parents strongly about tobacco and alcohol use in movies, but parents appear to be in the clear with television.

Currently, there is only one channel that owns the young adult demographic and it’s MTV.

Young adults 12-34 name MTV as the most recognized network. MTV targets girls and boys ages 12-34’s who represent 33% of the U.S. population. 50% of MTV viewers are under 21 years of age. What better place to find out about advertising restriction to teenagers then by visiting the MTV website, right?

I click on another link, this one’s for a reality TV show called “Girls Club.” The name of the show is not “women’s” club -- it’s “girls” club. Since I’ve never heard of this show, I decide to watch the 60 second trailer.

Here is the opening line: “I love to drink, I’ve never seen a drink I didn’t love!” Alice Wetterlund, Girls Club.

I nearly fall off of my chair. THIS is “the girls” club? But, wait, there are strict guidelines in place, they can’t openly advertise a specific brand of hard alcohol to children, right?

Remember, MTV is aware of the fact that 50% of their audience is under 21.

Thirty seconds into a 60 second clip we hear this: “I love Stoli Rasberry and Club Soda. I feel like a lady, and it’s refreshing!” Nicole Byer, Girls Club.

The very next line which follows the “Stoli Rasberry” is 38 seconds into the clip. A cute looking, pink cheeked girl wearing a headband says in playful, juvenile sounding voice, “Well, I always like a shot of vodka and a Shirley Temple.” Of course you do, sweetheart. Let me guess, you request in your Sippy cup? The sweet taste of a favorite children’s drink, and a sweet vodka mentioned within the same ten seconds…I’m sure it was just a coincidence.

So what was MTV’s comment on scenes where alcohol and cigarettes are blatantly slipped into trailers and shows? “Our standards department reviews the content on our network and makes determinations on a case-by-case basis. We try to present our reality programming and the people in it as authentically as possible.”

After all, reality television is completely unscripted, right?

The harsh reality: Reality television has found a clever new way to slip in product placement and illegal advertising to young children. Coupled with the alcohol industry’s blatant disregard for the very few advertising laws that are established, it is no surprise that there is an upsurge in distilled spirit consumption among teenagers in the U.S.

According to a recent analysis by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, alcohol related advertising increased by 71% in the last decade; this is largely attributed to exposure on cable television. Researchers examined alcohol advertising placements to determine whether the industry had kept its word to refrain from advertising on television programs for which more than 30% of the viewing audience is likely to be underage. The alcohol industry has not lived up to its agreement to limit television advertising to underage viewers.

Psychologists and researchers are urging parents to limit television viewing to 45 minutes per day.

It is not just because increased screen time is directly connected to a decrease in grades. It is. It is also because of the unintentional social messages that it sends to our kids. Limiting the amount of time a child spends in front of a screen is one simple way all parents can limit the amount of advertising our young children are exposed to.

© 2014 Rebecca Jackson

Rebecca Jackson is co-author of The Learning Habit: A Groundbreaking Approach to Homework and Parenting That Helps Our Children Succeed in School and Life.

Stress itself may not necessarily be a negative force.  When your spirits are in high gear while working on a major project trying to meet a deadline, or even burning the midnightoil to get away on a much needed vacation to save your sanity or your relationship – the stress experienced can be called “good” stress.”

At Stanford University School of Medicine, Firdaus Dhabhar, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral science, has been studying stress and its affects on immune defenses and our health.  He proposes that good stress can enhance the immune system thus increasing protection from the "fight or flight" response. He calls it an under-appreciated. 

But what happens when there is no end in sight?  What happens when you find yourself facing stress from a no-win situation – doing thankless tasks, working for an unappreciative boss, or on decision-making overload? When there is no let up in sight, the body says, “Enough!”

Katrin Branda and Matthias Strackea found that “stress and decision making are intricately connected, not only on the behavioral level, but also on the neural level, i.e., the brain regions that underlie intact decision making are regions that are sensitive to stress-induced changes.”

In 2012 research indicated that although factors that trigger stress are still with us, people are learning to cope more effectively. When the American Psychological Association reported that stress had declined, in fact, the research showed that stress is still with us, but perception and coping skills have changed — which in part may be related to media attention.

Stress is a common reaction to concerns about money, work, family and relationships in a world of economic and job uncertainty, marriage breakdown, and fractured love affairs.

The body’s way of slowing us down is often through an illness.  In today’s multi-decision-making society, what often happens is that even those who want to escape from a negative stress syndrome oftentimes find they are trapped. Sometimes those living with stress for prolonged periods of time develop what appears to be an addiction to stress.

The downside of multi-decision stress includes not only the inability to make effective decisions, but also a symptomatic respose that can begin with mild irritability, headaches and escalate to back problems, injuries, addictions and even a heart attack. To get out of a negative stress situation, either change the situation or change your response. But change even for the better is difficult.  In fact, change in itself is stressful. Nonetheless making a decision to change a situation that is wreaking havoc in one’s life oftentimes results in a change for the better – a more balanced life.

It does not happen overnight.  But finding ways to deflect unhealthy effects of stress might include exercise, meditation, or focusing on family and friends who bring laughter into your life. Activity, Sex, Laughter and Meditation Are Stress Relief Secrets

References:

Firdaus Dhabhar, PhD, a TEDx talk:  The positive effects of stress

Katrin Starckea, Matthias Branda,  Decision making under stress: A selective review, Neuroscience & Behavioral Reviews,  Volume 36, Issue 4,  2012

Have you read this article? Good-Thought Choices: 8 Ideas to Keep Stress at Bay

Adapted from “The Art of Decision-Making: 20 Winning Strategies for Women” by Rita E. Watson, Lowell House, (currently being updated).

Copyright 2014 Rita Watson/ All Rights Reserved

Regardless of the first impression narcissists make, over time their nature and personalities come out to the people they know well. Earlier research has shown that narcissists are often disliked by people who know them, since they frequently denigrate others in order to maintain high opinions of themselves.  A new study looks at two types of narcissism and how that dislike manifests in their social networks [1].

The first type is grandiose narcissism, in which people tend to be entitled and believe they are superior. These narcissists are often extroverted, charming, but also disagreeable. They may initially come off as confident and impressive, but eventually their lack of regard for others fuels dislike from others. Vulnerable narcissists, on the other hand, have a "defensive and insecure sense of grandiosity". These people tend to be aloof, hostile, and arrogant.

Researchers looked at groups of students who all knew each other well. The students nominated people they "liked" or "disliked" in their group. They could list as many or as few people in each category as they wanted.

The results? Both types of narcissists were highly disliked by their peers, and the narcissists also disliked many peers. There were differences between the two types of narcissists, too. Students who were grandiose narcissists were frequently nominated in the "dislike" category. Vulnerable narcissists, on the other hand, were not actively disliked but they also had very few "like" nominations.

So even though both types of narcissists were socially maladjusted, grandiosity engendered more active disliking. The implications? Aside from the insight itself, the researchers suggest that narcissists could actually help unite social groups. A shared dislike of the narcissists they know may be a factor that brings people closer than they would otherwise be.

[1] Czarna, Anna Z., Michael Dufner, and Allan D. Clifton. "The effects of vulnerable and grandiose narcissism on liking-based and disliking-based centrality in social networks."Journal of Research in Personality 50 (2014): 42-45.

I thought it might be interesting to take a look at my ten all time most popular posts since starting to write for Psychology Today six years ago, and what, if anything, the topics might tell us--at least about my particular readership if not most readers of PT blogs. This survey is not necessarily about profiling readers of PT blogs as individuals or personalities so much as getting some sense of what seemingly matters most to them, what appear to be their "ultimate concerns," to use philosopher and theologian Paul Tillich's term. So, without further ado, let's begin with my most widely read two-part posting over the years, and then list the remaining nine (noting some additional closely related topical postings) in descending order of total "hits" over time to see what type of PT reader profile emerges, if any.

#1) The two-part piece of mine that cumulatively received the most readings so far is titled "Anger Disorder: What It is and What We Can Do About It" (Part 1) and (Part 2)  "Anger Disorder: Can Bitterness Become a Mental Disorder?". What this, and the strong response to my other many postings about the contemporary problem of anger suggests to me is that at least my readers are cognizant of and concerned about our escalating "rage epidemic" today, its dangerousness, and the extremely challenging difficulties of dealing constructively with feelings of anger or rage in general, both as  psychotherapy consumers and providers. Anger may be the most misunderstood and maligned of all human emotions. And the most potentially destructive. As I have elsewhere written, anger is to contemporary culture today what repressed sexuality was to Victorian culture in Freud's day. Even more so than the pervasive phenomenon of anxiety later identified during the 1950s by existential therapists like Rollo May as central to psychopathology, repressed rage or anger is, in my view, at the core of most common mental disorders and at the very root of the so-called senseless violence tearing society apart. It is gratifying to see that so many readers of "Evil Deeds" evidently take this escalating and perilous epidemic of violence seriously. Just this past week, we have witnessed several anger-fueled acts of violence both here in the U.S. and Canada, perpetrated by militant Islamists. Such violent offenders, like the one who attacked police officers with a hatchet in NYC, are motivated by more than a political or religious agenda. They are motivated by rage. In some cases, they seize upon the idea of jihad as an opportunistic excuse to vent their long-festering rage via such violent evil deeds. Given the rash of non-politically motivated mass shootings occurring with such shocking regularity in recent decades in this country (see my numerous posts of this topic), including today's shooting of students at a Seattle high school, and the chilling developments in the Middle East, with the rabid metastasis of ISIS, so reminiscent of the Nazi movement during the late 1930s (see my prior posts), a potentially catastrophic explosion of collective anger, rage, resentment and hatred in the form of a Third World War looms large today as a terrible and terrifying threat to humanity. If the human race and civilization as we know it is to survive beyond the twenty-first century, we will have to learn to more consciously and constructively deal with our anger or rage, and with what Rollo May called the "daimonic" in general. (See my book Anger, Madness, and the Daimonic.)

#2) Next is a very popular single posting titled "When Partners Cheat:Who Deserves Second Chances?" Clearly, the powerful response to this piece indicates a deep concern in PT readers regarding romantic relationships, intimacy, and how to constructively deal with and heal the destructive breach of trust that results from infidelity. Romantic relationships are incredibly complex, confusing and challenging.  Corroborating this concern and fascination with the psychology of romantic relationships is the popularity of several related posts titled  "What Motivates Sexual Promiscuity,"  "The Psychology of Sexuality,""Sex, Celibacy and Spirituality: Why the Dalai Lama Doesn't Date,"   another regarding"Repetitive Relationship Patterns" and one on "The Psychology of Neurotic Romantic Attraction." Human sexuality, love and intimacy is clearly one of our ultimate concerns, as demonstrated by the enormously positive response to posts about sexuality here at PT in general. Our readers--i.e., you--seem to have an unquenchable thirst to learn about sexual relationship in all its myriad variations. Below the obvious superficial level of titillation lies the profound fascination (sometimes obsession) with the power, meaning and mystery of sexuality, and the strong desire to satisfy our sexual fantasies and instinctual needs. So, in this regard, Sigmund Freud was absolutely right to focus so intently on the centrality of sexuality in human psychology at a time when sex was a taboo subject. But he became overly fixated on the role of sexual instinct to the exclusion of others, albeit eventually acknowledging the aggressive instinct later in his career. From an existential perspective, we could say that part of what underlies, drives and amplifies this preoccupation with romantic relationships today is our growing existential isolation, aloneness, alienation and loneliness. (See my prior post.) Creating interpersonal relationships and sexual liaisons can, of course, be a healthy way of assuaging our loneliness. Or, more problematically in many cases, compulsively escaping our existential aloneness, and, in some instances, our underlying death anxiety. This is one way of thinking about so-called sex addiction. Whatever the motivation, when it comes to discussing sex--how to do it, where to find it, its psychological and spiritual significance, its risks and rewards--PT readers can't seem to get enough. We are, after all, fundamentally sexual creatures.

#3) The third most popular piece on my list asks the controversial question "Is Depression a Disease?" Depression (along with anxiety, its "kissin' cousin") is a topic addressed in another post titled "Essential Secrets of Psychotherapy: Why We Worry (and what we can do about it)" is one of the most common complaints of clients or patients seeking psychotherapy today. Given the ubiquitous use of psychopharmacological treatments for both unipolar and bipolar depression (see also "Bipolar Disorder Debate: Myths of Mental Illness"), and a growing public recognition of the limitations and dangers of the purely biological approach to mental disorders so predominant today, many PT readers seem to be seeking a better understanding of the significance and psychology of depression and its efficacious treatment. There is, indeed, more than one way of conceptualizing depression and its causes. Existential analyst Viktor Frankl, for example, defined depression as D=S-M: depression equals suffering minus meaning. His point, made first by Nietzsche, was that almost any suffering in life can be tolerated so long as one can find or impute some meaning in that suffering. The chronic lack of meaning in the sufferer leads to a kind of "clinical despair" or nihilism. Nihilism results when deep-seated clinical despair is marked by a sense of life’s absurdity and unfairness, loss of faith and courage, and a bitter rejection of meaning, moral values or any sense of existential purpose. If we look closely, we can see such an underlying nihilism in many of those that are attracted to violent terrorism in the name of ISIS or Al-Qaeda. Nihilism commonly underlies the chronic depressive symptoms, malaise and ennui of individuals seeking psychotherapy today, though it may not be recognized as such by most clinicians. Moreover, as I have tried to make clear here and elsewhere, depression can also be conceived of as stemming from the chronic repression, denial or dissociation of the "daimonic," especially of anger or rage. (See my book.)

#4 and 5) Perhaps surprisingly, my fourth and fifth most widely read posts are titled"What is Existential Psychotherapy?," and "What is the Shadow?"This (and the many astute comments regularly posted by you)  tells me that there are a significant number of mental health professionals, graduate students, and undergraduates who peruse Psychology Today blogs, along with potential consumers of counseling and psychotherapy wanting to learn more about different contemporary treatment approaches. We might further infer that there is a gradual resurgence of interest in existential therapy and depth psychology today, based in part on escalating frustration with what CBT and psychopharmacology alone (or combined) can provide. The strong response of readers to the post about C.G. Jung's concept of the "shadow," for example, along with my series of posts on"Messiahs of Evil," and to several pieces on exorcism and psychotherapy, like "The Devil Inside: Psychotherapy, Exorcism and Demonic Possession,"points in particular to  what may be yet another ultimate concern of PT readers: the perennial problem of evil. Evil has traditionally been excluded or ignored by mainstream psychiatry and psychology, with the notable exception of courageous clinicians like Jung, Menninger, May, Lifton and Peck. In our era of rage, mass shootings, terrorism, serial killers, the horrific public beheading of American citizens by ISIS, and now the proliferation explosions of ISIS inspired "lone wolf" acts of violence in the U.S. and Canada, we need to better understand the underlying psychology of these evil deeds and of human evil in general.

# 6 and 7) Spirituality seems to be another ultimate concern of PT readers. For instance, "What is Courage?: Existential Lessons from the Cowardly Lion" and  "Essential Secrets of Psychotherapy: Change or Acceptance?" along with a number of other posts regarding the integration of psychology and spirituality, such as "The Psychology of Spirituality," and "Do You Believe in Magic: Eckhart Tolle, the Dalai Lama, and the Future of Psychotherapy."Spirituality and religion are closely correlated with psychology, and need to be assimilated somehow into psychotherapeutic practice. PT readers seem quite curious about this intersection of psychology and spirituality and what it might look like. Even CBT has undergone a "spiritualization" in the form of Linehan's Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT), including the integration of mindfulness methods and the practice of "radical acceptance." (See my prior post.)  Indeed, is there really some distinct intrinsic division between spiritual development and what Jung called "individuation" in psychotherapy? Certainly, subjects such as courage, acceptance, good and evil are traditional religious concerns. Religion or spirituality can be understood as one way we humans try to make life meaningful, and, as Frankl states, we are all motivated by a "will to meaning," which when frustrated or denied over time, results in neurosis or even psychosis. This is why spirituality and religiosity must be integrated into the psychotherapy process, which is always on one level, a meaning-making quest.I believe that many of my PT readers are engaged in and committed to that quest.

# 8) This intense interest in spirituality also explains the enthusiastic response to various other posts on Jungian psychology, such as "Essential Secrets of Psychotherapy: What's Your Psychological Type?"  and "Essential Secrets of Psychotherapy: Jung's Typology, Eudaemonology and the Elusive Art of Happiness," which reflects a more general fascination on the part of PT readers with the Jungian notions of "extraversion" and, especially, "introversion." One possible inference is that many of you may be introverted types, struggling to be true to yourselves in an exceedingly extraverted society, or perhaps still uncertain as to your fundamental type.There was also "Reading the Red Book: How C.G. Jung Salvaged His Soul", as well as # 8 on this list titled "Essential Secrets of Psychotherapy: The Inner Child." Much has already been written on this subject of the "divine" or archetypal inner child, which stems from Jung's writings, especially in so-called pop psychology. Yet, this post appears to have struck a chord in some  readers. It indicates a growing recognition that we are not always the master in our own psychological house, that true adulthood is more psychological than chronological, and that many so-called adults are emotionally little five-or-ten-or fifteen-year-olds living in a grown-up body and behaving accordingly. This is one reason why the world is in the sorry state it is. More generally, considered along with the above-mentioned popularity of my post on the "shadow", there appears to be increasing concern with and acknowledgment of the phenomenological fact and influential power of the "unconscious" by PT readers, despite or perhaps due to the contemporary denial and dismissal of depth psychology and the notion of the "unconscious" by mainstream psychiatry and psychology. The popularity of posts like "Essential Secrets of Psychotherapy: Truth, Lies and Self-Deception"attest as well to the recognition that we can conceal the existential facts of life and truth of who we are even from ourselves and the innate capacity for unconsciousness. It is as if readers recognize that the pendulum of psychiatric theory has swung too far to one side in recent decades, requiring counterbalance to find some meaningful and practical middle-ground.

# 9)  The simultaneous terror of and fascination with the phenomenon of human evil on the part of PT readers can be further inferred by a few of my most popular forensic posts on psychopathy such as "Masks of Sanity", various high-profile criminal cases, and the seemingly endless string of horrifying mass killings at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Colorado, Sandy Hook, and Santa Barbara to name but a few.  See, for example, "A Wicked Rage for Recognition," "Nightmare in Aurora: Batman, the Joker, andJames Holmes."  "Did Casey Kill Cayley: A Forensic Commentary" combined with a second commentary called  "Did Casey Kill Cayley" comes in at # 9, accompanied by several other posts written from the specialized perspective of forensic psychology, including "Why Did Lee Harvey Oswald Kill John F. Kennedy?." Forensic psychology is one of the hottest specialties in the field today, and the popularity of my forensically-oriented offerings on high profile cases like those of convicted killers Phil Spector, Drew Peterson and Joran van der Sloot, as well as James Holmes, Anders Breivik, Elliot Rodger, Adam Lanza and other mass shooters reflect PT readers' fascination with such sordid cases, the psychology of evil, and with the burgeoning field of forensic psychology in general. These postings draw on my fifteen years of working as a forensic psychologist for the criminal courts in California, and hopefully provide readers a glimpse into how forensic criminal psychologists think, what they do, and how forensic psychology in the courtroom can contribute to improving the criminal justice system.

#10) Last but not least, there was my relatively widely-read review of the blockbuster film "Inception: Art, Dream and Reality." Yes, obviously PT readers love movies. Especially smart movies. Particularly psychological thrillers. (See also my review of A Dangerous Method.)  But apart from the huge popularity and ingenuity of Inception, this robust response, along to that of other posts suggests yet another ultimate concern of my readers: the enigmatic phenomenon of dreams, and, with it, the richness and complexity of what depth psychologists Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung called the "unconscious," out of which our dreams originate. Today's most popular mainstream therapeutic approaches to mental disorders such as CBT, REBT, and DBT tend to denigrate and exclude dream analysis and the unconscious in general. But this sadly results in an impoverishment and disempowerment of psychotherapy today, and places patients or clients at a distinct disadvantage in effectively coping with their psychological problems. Patients (and therapists) need to hear what their dreams have to say. Taken together with the strong response to several of my other posts on depth psychology, and C.G. Jung's analytical psychology in particular  perhaps readers are ready to embrace once more these rudiments of psychodynamic treatment. Indeed, the field of psychotherapy, now little more than a century old, is in the midst of an existential identity crisis, its future survival uncertain. We live in a time when the very idea of traditional "talk therapy," particularly existential and psychodynamic psychotherapy, threatens to be overshadowed and eradicated by the dominating forces of psychopharmacology, managed mental health care, and attenuated methods of brief treatment like cognitive-behavioral therapy. In the face of such portentous trends, it is important to stress and reaffirm the emphasis of contemporary existential psychotherapy and depth psychology on core concerns often lacking consideration in current mainstream treatment trends.

Conclusions: PT readers demonstrate an impressive diversity of interests when it comes to psychology, which is fitting given the vast diversity of the field of psychology today. Of course, there are myriad reasons for readers responding to some posts more than others aside from the particular topic. Timing, for instance, an especially provocative title, or the post being featured as an "Essential Read" or quoted from at the top of the PT page are all significant factors determining the popularity of any given posting. In addition, it can rightly be argued that my top ten list is more reflective of my own intersts and ultimate concerns than those of my readers. Moreover, it must be noted that my list is based on cumulative hits over the previous six years, which means that older posts hold the distinct advantage of having been around longer than newer posts, and, therefore, more readership over time.

Admittedly, my blog, "Evil Deeds" is specialized, and does not represent the much wider field of professional psychology. Far from it. I write from the perspective of a clinical and forensic psychologist and psychotherapist. Nonetheless, certain "ultimate concerns" stand out to me in this simple survey. My own subjective (non-scientific) interpretation of the data suggests that many of our readers are still interested in the fundamental or primal aspects of human existence: sex, love, anger, rage, relationships, meaning, creativity, and the problem of evil. Perhaps more obviously, PT readers are immensely curious and passionate about psychology, and want to learn more about it.They also appear rightfully concerned about the struggling state of psychotherapy today, and how it fails on some fundamental level to adequately understand and treat human suffering in the form of depression, anxiety, psychosis, etc., as well as the trauma experienced in the face of natural evils such as tornadoes, earthquakes, typhoons, tsunamis, and now, the deadly Ebola epidemic, etc. (See "The Trauma of Evil," for example.) PT readers seem to be aware of and sensitive to the lopsided trend in today's psychology toward materialism, reductionism, biologism, and the need to counterbalance the predominance of pharmacotherapy and CBT with a more existential, spiritually-sensitive, depth-psychological approach which I refer to as "existential depth psychology."

In this sense, many of our readers--undergraduate and graduate students, professionals and lay persons--comprise the collective vanguard or cutting edge of contemporary culture, indicating what psychology needs to do to get back on track and to survive and thrive into the next century. Psychology suffers from poor public relations. Its image has been tarnished, diminished, diluted and distorted. You, the reader, represent and reflect the living pulse and conscience of psychology today, and, as both consumers, students and practitioners, will determine its destiny and future trajectory. You are an indicator of how the public regards psychology today, and which direction we must move in order to make psychology, especially clinical psychology, more responsive and attuned to your needs. Psychology needs to hear from you, now more than ever. This is truly a great responsibility, and a fateful one for the coming generation. For all your insightful comments, critiques, curiosity, caring, and passion for psychology, where it's been and where it's heading, I personally thank you.

I’ve kinda sorta made a living as a writer for a few decades now. It was never easy, and it required a lot of adjustments, not least of which was my definition of “making a living.” While one person’s steps—often unplanned--to becoming what he or she dreams about isn’t going to be someone else’s recipe, every little bit of information helps.

Here, then, are brief reviews of three new books about being creative and making it as a creative person:

1. Every Idea is a Good Idea: How Songwriters and Other Working Artists Get it Done by Tom Sturges, former head of creative at Universal Music Publishing Group, has a sub-subtitle (I’ve been noticing more of these lately on nonfiction books): Be creative, anytime, anywhere.

Sturges shares a lot of pithy quotes about creativity and explores the work habits of famous creatives, such as that Einstein’s best ideas came while shaving. He describes in detail several creative exercises, such as “If you were someone else, how would you think?” in which you combine a particular challenge (such as giving a speech at the U.N. on global warming) with a particular (famous) person and then see how differently you think about an idea.

His final two chapters are on collaborative creativity. (If collaboration is your thing, don’t miss this post with insights about collaborating.)

2 Thought-Provoking Tips (from the chapter “Creativity and You: Twelve Ideas to Maximize Your Creative Potential”):

1. Take full advantage of the golden hour. When a new idea first occurs to you, those next few minutes determine its fate, writes Sturges. Don’t judge it, and capture it entirely. “Sketch, outline, draft, dictate into a phone, tell somebody, sing it in the shower over and over, film yourself.” (Sometimes, though, telling somebody too soon allows you to procrastinate doing anything more with the idea. And then there’s another of Sturges’s ideas, that you should never share your creative process with others, but keep it a secret.)

2. A table of contents can be a creative tool. When you first begin working on a project, write out a draft of a table of contents at the same time. It will help keep you on track and focused. It also serves as a motivating finish line. Be flexible, of course, as the table of contents will grow and change as the project advances.

2. Make It Mighty Ugly: Exercises & Advice for Getting Creative Even When It Ain’t Pretty (sub-subtitle: A Handbook for Vanquishing Creative Demons) is by Kim Piper Werker, who lives in Vancouver and teaches Mighty Ugly workshops. It’s aimed at crafters (Werker has previously written books on crocheting), as well as writers, artists, and those without, as yet, a chosen medium for their artistic expression.

Anecdotes from her life and other creative types round out the advice and tips in this friendly book, laid out in chunks, boxed text, and short paragraphs, with amusing illustrations by Kate Bingaman-Burt.

I like Werker’s attitude. She eschews cheerleading, admits you won’t learn a series of steps that she used that will ensure your own success, and acknowledges that knowing you aren’t alone is half the battle. She also lets us know that failure is good in the longer run, and fears and blocks and perfectionism and self-doubt are the normal dark sides of creativity, our creative demons if you will, and that once you understand them, you’ll be free.

I highly recommend this book for its honest and fresh take on creativity. If you only take advantage of a few of Werker’s suggestions, you’ll be glad you did.

3 Exercises:

1. Make a thing with a kid. Ask a kid you know to tell you what to make, then make it with him or her. Kids aren’t naturally perfectionist, so this will be fun. (I’ve done it. It is.)

2. Flip it. Say you’ve done something you consider successful. What could you have done to make it fail?

3. Read a book. When you’re in the doldrums about your current work, choose a book that isn’t like the ones you usually read. (I do that all the time for my blogs and find it keeps my mind oiled and ready.)

3. Art Inc.: The Essential Guide for Building Your Career as an Artist by Lisa Congdon is laid out in bite-sized sections within seven chapters, all focused on helping amateur artists (any kind) become artists who make a living doing what they love. (Although the interspersed orange-colored pages with interviews are less comfortable on the eyes to read.)

There are many ways to make money from your art that you may not have considered, and a combination of income sources is ideal. It’s hard for many creative types to shift into a business mindset but it’s worth the effort to be able to fulfill a dream.

Congdon suggests building a “vision map” of where you’d like to be in 3-5 years. She offers specific ways of finding your own voice (“take a break from the Internet”). And then she tackles everything from the obvious—a strong website, appropriate use of social media—all the way up to negotiating for your illustration work and how to say no when you’re too busy.

Copyright (c) 2014 by Susan K. Perry, author of Kylie’s Heel

Despite our best efforts, we all judge others.  It might be over a small thing, like a co-worker who took too long of a lunch break.  Or it might be a big thing, such as a person behaves selfishly or hurts our feelings. 

Psychologist and meditation teacher Tara Brach frequently tells this story: Imagine you are walking through the woods and you see a small dog.  It looks cute and friendly.  You approach the dog and move to pet the dog.  Suddenly it snarls and tries to bite you.  The dog no longer seems cute and you feel fear and possibly anger.  Then, as the wind blows, the leaves on the ground are carried away and you see the dog has one of its legs caught in a trap.  Now, you feel compassion for the dog.  You know it became aggressive because it is in pain and is suffering.

What can we learn from this story? How can we become less judgmental? 

1. Don’t blame yourself.  We are instinctively hard-wired for survival.  When we see a dog (or a person) that might bite us (literally or metaphorically), of course we feel threatened.  We go into fight-flight-freeze mode, and are unable to see the myriad reasons for another’s behavior.  We get tight and defensive.  This is a normal first reaction.  The key is to pause before we act out of this mode.

2. Be mindful.  Although judgment is a natural instinct, try to catch yourself before you speak, or send that nasty email and do any potential harm.  You can’t get your words back.  Pause. See if you can understand where the person may be coming from. Try to rephrase your critical internal thought into a positive one, or at least a neutral one.  After all, like the dog in the trap story above, we really don’t know the reasons for someone’s behavior.

3. Depersonalize.  When someone disagrees with us or somehow makes our life difficult, remember that it’s typically not about us.  It may be about their pain, their struggle.  Why not give others the benefit of the doubt? Will Smith said, “Never underestimate the pain of a person, because in all honesty, everyone is struggling. Some people are better at hiding it than others.”

4. Look for basic goodness.  This takes practice, as our minds naturally scan for the negative, but if we try, we can almost always find something good about another person.

5. Repeat the mantra, “Just Like Me.”  Remember, we are more alike than different. When I feel critical of someone, I try to remind myself that the other person loves their family just like I do, and that person wants to be happy and free of suffering, just like I do.  And most importantly, that person makes mistakes, just like I do.

6. Reframe.  When someone does something you don’t like, perhaps think of it as they are simply solving a problem in a different way than you would.  Or maybe they have a different timetable than you. This may help you be more open minded and accepting of their behavior. The Dalai Lama says, “People take different roads seeking fulfillment and happiness. Just because they're not on your road doesn't mean they've gotten lost.”  

7. Look at your own behavior.  Sometimes, we may be judging someone for something that we our self do, or have done. For example, the next time you find yourself yelling at someone while you’re driving, ask yourself, “Have I ever driven poorly?” Of course, we all have.

8. Educate yourself.  When people do things that are annoying, they may have a hidden disability.  For example, some people with poor social skills may have Asperger’s.  So if someone’s invading your personal space (as someone with Asperger’s might do), remember again, it’s not about you. Albert Einstein said, “Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” 

9. Give the person the benefit of the doubt. Someone once told me, no one wakes up in the morning and says, "I think I'm going to be a jerk today." Most of us do the best we can with the resources we have at the moment.

10. Feel good about you. Brene´ Brown says: “If I feel good about my parenting, I have no interest in judging other people's choices. If I feel good about my body, I don't go around making fun of other people's weight or appearance. We're hard on each other because were using each other as a launching pad out of her own perceived efficiency.”

And finally, remember that judging a person does not define who they are, it defines who you are.

Photo via by macinate via Flickr Creative Commons

Let’s Keep in Touch!

Join me on Twitter  and  Facebook.

I am the co-author of Dying of Embarrassment, Painfully Shy, and Nurturing the Shy Child. Dying of Embarrassment: Help for Social Anxiety & Phobia was found to be one of the most useful and scientifically grounded self-help books in a research study published in Professional Psychology, Research and Practice. I’ve also been featured in the award-winning PBS documentary, Afraid of People. My husband, Greg, and I also co-authored Illuminating the Heart: Steps Toward a More Spiritual Marriage.

In yesterday’s article, I made the case that our perhaps most underconsidered lifestyle is reclusiveness, the largely solitary existence.

In response, I received comments and private emails requesting another article about it. So here are some thoughts on how one might make a reclusive life work.

Avoiding guilt and shame. Conventional wisdom is that we are a social animal, a sexual animal. So a reclusive person might fear being perceived as inferior even as not fully human.

It might help to remember that not only does the solitary life allow you to live the life you want to live, not only does it not hurt anyone, but it may, paradoxically, be prosocial. For example, some people feel obliged to spend significant time and money propping up a lazy family member, even though it does little good. That time and money could more wisely be spent solo, for example, on prosocial work: inventing or promoting a useful for- or nonprofit service or product, creating useful how-to videos, even, ahem, writing a helpful article.

We don’t denigrate the social funster. Why should we denigrate s/he who prefers a solitary life? And if we do, is that not our deficiency?

Work. Self-employment is an obvious choice for the reclusive person. However, whilethere are ways to boost your odds of self-employment success, some people might be wise to be employed by someone else. If so, you still may increase your solitude. For example, ask your boss if you might have a corner cube, telecommute at least part-time, or do more solo work and less of those team projects that often can drive even social people nuts. True, isolates may not build the relationships key to staying well employed but sometimes, that can be mitigated by preempting the problem: Tell boss and coworkers that you prefer solitude and that doesn’t mean you dislike your coworkers. Hopefully, they’ll celebrate that diversity of work style, not just the racial diversity that, these days, every employer implores.

Play. There are countless solo recreations and doing them by yourself means no compromising. Even within a given activity, if you’re doing it with someone, acccomodation is often required. For example, you both want to go to a sports event but do you spring for the $100 seats or go with the $15 specials? Compromise and you’re both not happy.

Relationships. Reclusiveness needn’t be pure. It merely refers to a predisposition toward solitary activity. On an instance by instance basis, decide whether it’s worth spending that chunk of time with a particular person. Do beware of spending time with someone out of a misplaced sense of obligation: You believe it’s unwise to see that person but do so out of irrational guilt or shame.

When you need help. One of reclusive people’s fears is that it will leave them helpless when ill or aged. That may or may not occur but if you choose to be social just to try to preempt that possibility, it’s a certitude you’re doing what you don’t like, and people still might not be there for you. Remember that if you do need help, you can usually hire it or, if indigent, use taxpayer-paid services or private charity.

The takeaway

The reclusive lifestyle is a road less traveled but might it be worth at least a brief sojourn?

Marty Nemko's bio is in Wikipedia.

This article is part two of a three part series. The current presentation deals with a description of envy chiefly from a Western perspective, and also alludes to its Eastern correlate---“desire.” The last part in this series will outline a more detailed analysis of the healthy maturation of envy---its use as an opportunity for profound self-improvement.

   Envy theory draws from psychology, psychoanalysis, phenomenology, neuroscience, and aspects of the humanities in constructing models of envy in the human condition. It advances the traditional “love-hate” paradigm and introduces its substrata of “love-envy” literacy. The envy model suggests correlations between envy and the Buddhist axiom of desire.

Why Discuss Envy?

    The discussions here are about unconscious envy, the deep substrata underlying how mental processes, especially emotions, operate. In order to know something, an initial process of unconscious splitting it into two occurs. Typically, this involves two contrasting poles. They can be interpreted or sensed as positive-negative, clear-unclear, important-unimportant, good-bad, black-white, and so forth. This binary split sets the tone for envy’s operation to impute an overriding interpretation of value-unvalue or superior-inferior to what is grasped. Then, that which is valued is pursued further until conflict in the form of “can’t be attained” or “can’t be understood” or the like occurs. If frustration is sufficiently heightened (unmodulated envy), then, that which cannot be attained is somehow denied, attacked, or brutally devalued (envy’s destructive spoiling).

    This nonconscious operation is the basis for the emergence of all forms of hatred, anger, and behavioral destructiveness. Emotionally, greed and jealousy are prime manifestations that are less intense derivatives of unconscious envy.

    Environmental tutoring significantly modulates envy’s innate dispositional loading. In other words, learning and real experiences add to one’s sense of reality, and so moderate the primitive feelings that attend envious feelings. As temperament and personality develop, envy predispositions become amalgamated in a variety of ways into one’s character. Many aspects of envy theory await testability. Its value in clinical applications is yet to be explored.

     Unconscious envy is the primitive sensation and conflated feeling of privation, powerlessness, inferiority, and hostile distress coupled with the urge to rob and spoil in the face of advantages and their enjoyment existing elsewhere. Envy is proposed as being a primary and nuclear dimension of mind around which cognitive and emotional experiences organize from infancy into adulthood. Unconscious envy as an orientation module denotes the raw mind’s ultimate default state.

     From a metaphorical perspective, unconscious envy is akin to “biting the breast that feeds” and “poisoning the well.” This is part of envy’s paradoxical nature. Ironically, such unconscious envy cannot be taken personally; it is the mind’s reactive default state. In its most primitive iteration, it is a reflexive response to another based on the envier’s idiosyncratic fantasy construals---an individual’s subjective interpretation of relatively neutral data. In this sense, it is insular and “impersonal.” This virtual absence of empathy correlates with states of narcissism. Of course, even the destructiveness of unconscious envy---harmful as it is—exists on a spectrum from mild self-sabotage to an irreparable sense of raw guilt, all of which mental states cause anxiety, isolation, and inhibitions on all levels.

A Note on the Buddhist Conception of Desire

    As described in great detail in the last article in this series of three on Ayurveda and Envy, the concept of Agni, which denotes the fire of transformation both physiological and psychological, is central. To give a rough approximation of its mental function, Agni could be said to correlate with the momentum that integrates executive functions, processing speed, emotional tone, and constructive action.

     In Buddhism, this grouping can be seen to be the basis for the broad notion of “desire”---the impulse to grasp an object that one perceives is not possessed. The entire conception, in fact, has to do with identifying this urge and consciously working toward ways to modulate its intensity. In fact, in Western traditions, the Bible states that Adam and Eve’s firstborn son was named by her, Cain. It has been suggested that the intrinsic meaning of this name denotes “acquisition.” Cain, unable to attain the recognition from the Creator that he wished, felt inferior to his brother, and murdered him---envy in a nutshell.

     In Ayurveda, Agni in the mind (Manas) intimately correlates with envy, pride, narcissism and lustful desire. These raw substrata exist in conjunction with Agni, the spiritual fire of transformation that underlies all positive change. This change is brought about through Agni’s capacity to stimulate knowing, and transmute it into wisdom over time.

     In Eastern traditions, equanimity is achieved through moderation since the acquisition dimension of desire is emphasized. In envy theory, subjective feelings of privation and the wish to obliterate are central to envy. Further elaboration in this regard is beyond the scope of this article since emphasis here is on a Western psychological perspective in defining envy and in suggesting its potential for a healthy maturation.

The Experience of Envy

     The original painting, Unconscious Envy, by the author depicted at the beginning of this article is a visual representation of the insular, isolative, and dark face of envy. It portrays in artistic terms what the following narrative is attempting to approximate regarding how envy is experienced.

      Unmet needs and nonconscious desires pressing on consciousness can foster feelings of envy; the actions that result can seriously undermine psychic health. Frustration, disappointment, and unrealistic expectations typically recur as leading attitudes. Envy is at the root of jealousy and greed; malignant psychological attitudes and destructive behaviors, especially irrational self-undermining, typically have components that include envy. Cutting edge fMRI studies suggest discrete neurological pathways differentiating envy from jealousy, which is typically a conscious experience. Irrational hoarding behaviors connote underlying envy. Feelings of loneliness and anxieties accompanying aging, moreover, have roots in envy. Envy, in fact, is a prime stressor in everyday living.

      Unconscious phantasy, according to envy theory, is the “mentalization” unique to the humanization of the human biological organism. Phantasy is unconscious thinking and feeling; it encapsulates interpersonal action scenarios. In other words, it is the amalgamated unconscious mental container of desire, wish, and defense mechanisms. Unconscious envy is housed in the form of unconscious phantasies. Some of these are just below the surface of awareness; some are deeply repressed. Dreams are a glimpse of how an individual has formed his or her own unique unconscious phantasies. In themselves, they are neither good nor bad; they are merely representations of anxieties and conflicts and interpersonal relationships being processed. The “stronger” the unconscious phantasy, the more one is likely to cross the line between thought and action, and so externalize the phantasy into real life. Vivid examples of this can be seen in modern horror cinema and in TV series that deal with psychotic and psychopathic persons. Additionally, spectacular works of art may also reflect the breakthrough into real life of creative unconscious phantasies.

      In envy theory, unconscious phantasy—how the mind unconsciously experiences and pictures itself-- represents information and its lived processing. The spelling “phantasy” distinguishes unconscious phantasy from conscious fantasy as reflected in daydreaming and imagination. The British psychoanalyst, Melanie Klein in1957 used this framework in first elaborating her seminal theory of primary envy. Wilfred Bion in1962 further extended this construct in both its developmental and clinical significance. My own text, Envy Theory, further expands these ideas. Unconscious envy is largely though not entirely self-generated, especially since it is the mental side of the biomental self and modulated by the interpersonal environment of experience. For example, dreaming, to some extent, reflects the operation of unconscious phantasy. Dreaming has been correlated with rapid eye movement (REM) sleep. Infants in the first two weeks of life spend 50% of sleep time in REM, from 3 to 5 months 40%, and from 6 months to 2 years about 30%. Adults spend about 20% of sleep time in REM.

      Indirect behavioral indicators of unconscious envy are suggested when one senses another to be disturbingly intrusive, acquisitive and withholding, and generally unhelpful. All self-undermining attitudes and behaviors are rooted in unconscious envy. Conscious recognition of envy, for example, resides in many folklore ideas such as “evil eye” and “jinx,” as well as in expressions such as “bite the breast that feeds,” “the grass is always greener on the other side,” and “poisoning the well.” Behaviorally, envy is the core motivating force behind defacing property and spoiling the pleasure of others. These connote identifying something exceedingly good with the implication of hostile spoiling and destroying the perceived source of goodness, not badness.

      Envy theory goes to great lengths to emphasize the healthy ego’s ability to differentiate the workings of the inner world, choosing among alternative courses of action, and the implementation of volitional behaviors—reality testing and reality sense.

 The Broad Significance of Envy

 Endowments of envy, however, are not as bleak and unsparing as they, at first, may appear. An understanding of envy theory would be incomplete if its clinical significance were not recognized and underestimated. That significance pivots on the fact that, when properly identified and managed, a healthy maturation of envy may occur from which successful advances both personally and socially may arise. This leap into empathetic states of mind transforms “raw love” into a pragmatic capacity for intelligent loving. This gift of nature transcends self-destructiveness and promotes social advancement for both individuals and groups. The political and societal ramifications, therefore, take on a guarded optimism.

      Envy theory also has correlations in sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. Although envy dynamics are profoundly intrapsychic (centered within subjective processes), they are embedded in interpersonal relatedness. The ramifications for social psychology are yet to be elucidated. Healthy survival (the healthy maturation of envy), for example, denotes both personal gain and gain for the other considered biomentally similar, a relation of kin. Evolutionary constructs, therefore, such as “inclusive fitness” and “kin selection” have psychodynamic relevance in envy theory.

     The significance of envy as a typical state of mind, universal but dimensional, is put forth here. Rather than being simple and discrete, envy is a diverse set of urges, emotions, and cognitions with a tonic presence that waxes and wanes developmentally and chronologically over time and experience.

     Throughout envy theory, the psychological dynamic of “power” is given its psychodynamic appellation, namely the construct of omnipotence, the unconscious platform organizing all human strivings toward control. Phantasied omnipotence (nonconscious strivings toward exerting power) and a need to control are the pillars upon which unconscious envy stands. Power in all its connotations suggests holding great resources along with the authoritative force, strength, and ability to act. Power can also be defined as the ability to control, influence, or coerce others and environments by manipulating resources. Envy and an underlying sense of powerlessness go hand-in-hand. The contemporary disruptions in financial institutions and political regimes arise from unmodulated envy dynamics. In fact, some clinical expressions of intellectual limitations and academic difficulties may have significant components of envy. Inhibitions due to anxiety correlate with these limitations.

     Of course, the aforementioned descriptions of power and omnipotence have an abstract quality to them in order to convey their broad meaning. If the reader attempts to insert concrete examples into these generalizations that illustrate how power---strength and control flows within a relationship---moves and is negotiated, then the reality of power becomes experienced as a “real-time” life event.

 Envy’s Potential Gift: The Healthy Maturation of Envy

 The possibility of the healthy maturation of envy, a novel construct in envy theory, affords those dedicated to resolute self-change the possibility of its healthy transformation. This is a potential gift that is possible within human nature. The experience of “raw envy,” in this way, morphs into more conscious and complex attitudes that include health-promoting admiration, emulation, and reciprocal gratitude.

      Put differently, the universal core of dispositional envy does not connote fatalism. The maturation of higher cortical functioning enables reason to modulate the more primitively based limbic-amygdala passions expressed as unmodulated fear and envy. In other words, what had been experienced as self-destructive behaviors, self-sabotaging anxieties, interpersonal power struggles, and a subliminal sense of envious bitterness regarding the “enviable” traits or possessions of others mellows and takes on a new perspective. The last part in this series will elaborate the details of the healthy maturation of envy.

The author is eager to address questions in part three regarding any issues in this series. Please submit these at this website under comments. Thank you!

Many people would agree that we benefit from the increased experience that getting older brings. However, with each passing year, the aging of the body creates its own difficulties in everyday life. There are the inevitable aches, strains, and pains of our aging bones, joints, and muscles not to mention changes in appearance that make it more difficult to feel accepted in a youth-oriented society.

The one truth about aging is that it’s intimately linked with the passage of time. We may be able to alter the clock by setting it forward or backward an hour depending on the season, but we can’t set it back for more than that, much less days, months, or years. No one has figured out how to alter the body’s pace-setter cells that mysteriously link the body’s aging with the number of times the earth revolves around the sun.  

Just as the average person may bemoan the basic fact that aging and time are completely tied together, scientists who study the aging process find their job made far more difficult by this age-time conundrum. Are the changes we think due to aging actually due to social and historical changes? Consider aging within the Baby Boomers versus aging within Gen X-ers. The Baby Boomers had few of the benefits of improved social attitudes toward healthy eating and fitness that characterize the younger generation as they approach midlife. The Baby Boomers also went through different historical periods that affected their social and political attitudes. Because we can’t pluck people out of their own generation and watch them grow older in a different one, we’ll never know how much any individual, much less an entire age cohort, is showing changes intrinsic to aging separate from those related to these cultural factors.

Average people probably doesn’t fret too much about the limitations of research on aging, but they should. Most of what we read about aging in the popular press ignores the possibility that cultural shifts rather than true age-related changes account for a study’s findings. Do people actually become less well able to remember as they get older? Or is it only that older people now had poorer education when they were young and so never had learning skills as solid as their younger counterparts do now? Even if we follow the same people from youth to old age, we don’t know whether they change as a result of aging or as a result of the historical era in which they lived.

Clearly, then, we need a way to separate age from time. Such a feat would also have tremendous potential benefits for health. What if you didn’t have to lose your physical prowess and health as you got older? If you could slow down the biological time bomb counting down within your body, imagine how much better you would feel.

For decades, scientists who study aging have proposed swapping functional age for chronological age as a way out of the age-time quandary. We’ve also thought about asking people to tell us how old they “feel,” or subjective age. This wasn’t a bad idea, but it was not particularly scientific or reliable. Let’s say you’re 28 but you’re coming down with the flu, so you like you’re 48. When you get together you’re your high school pals, though, you feel 18. For a measure of age to perform as an adequate substitute, it has to provide a mood- and illness-resistant estimate.

A biological measure of functional age would seem to have more credibility, but it’s not very practical. Taking all the measurements that you’d need to estimate someone’s functional biological age becomes an expensive and time-consuming operation. In addition to measuring such obvious factors as blood pressure, heart rate, muscle mass, lung expiratory volume, kidney excretion rates, and so on.

To get biological age, you would also need to put people on a treadmill and get their heart and lungs to crank out their maximum capacity- so called “aerobic power.” Even this would not be a complete measure of functional age, but with an average decline of 1% per year after the age of 30 in the ordinary (sedentary) person, you’d have some sort of quantitative index that isn’t completely mixed up with historical era.

Norwegian medical researchers may finally have cracked the code. In a 24-year follow-up study of 37,000 adults, Bjarne M. Nes and his colleagues used a measure of cardiorespiratory fitness based not on actual exercise capacity as measured by aerobic power but instead on the far simpler method of asking people a series of questions, including their age, Body Mass Index (BMI), resting heart rate, and answers to these 3 questions:

1. How often do you exercise? (5-point scale from never to almost every day)
2. How hard do you usually push yourself? (3-point scale from not at all to push yourself to exhaustion)
3. How long do you exercise? (4-point scale from less than 15 to 60 minutes or more)

The cardiorespiratory fitness measure was particularly useful in predicting death from cardiovascular disease among people less than 60 years old. They calculated the odds of dying from cardiovascular disease as well as any cause at all on the basis of 1 standardized unit of fitness defined as a “MET” (metabolic unit) which equals the energy (oxygen) used by the body at rest. The harder your body works during the activity, the more oxygen is consumed. Each MET increase in cardiorespiratory fitness was reduced with as much as a 22% decrease in cardiovascular disease death and 10% less for all causes of death.  

In addition to showing that your risk of death is reduced proportionately to the extent that you exercise, the study’s findings allowed the authors to develop a test of fitness age.

The study’s findings show that if we think of age not as years since birth but years prior to death, it’s clear that you can literally become “younger” (have more years left to live) by maintaining this level of fitness. The expression “add more life to your years rather than years to your life” couldn’t be more appropriate.

Although cardiorespiratory fitness was the main focus of this study, physical exercise has other benefits that can keep your brain “younger” as well. Dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease is, at this point in time, not thought to be preventable. In contrast, vascular disease, which is related to cardiorespiratory fitness, can be preventable through exercise. There are also benefits of exercise to your mood, metabolism, and sexual health.

Of course, exercise can’t prevent everything wrong from happening to you, and there in fact can be risks associated with exercise not properly conducted. You can exercise to the point of damaging your joints, you might become obsessed with it, and you might even suffer more pronounced tooth decay than you otherwise would.

By the same token, leading a sedentary existence can make it even more difficult for you to exercise, starting a vicious downward cycle. Once you start to incorporate a reasonable amount of exercise into your lifestyle, though, it can set up a pattern of reinforcement especially if you notice that your mental outlook starts to lift and you start to feel more alert and energetic.

Once you think of your age as a needle you can move down the scale, you can conceive of your own life in a new and more controllable light. Age can truly become, for you, “just a number,” defined by you, and not just the calendar.

Follow me on Twitter @swhitbo for daily updates on psychology,health, and aging. Feel free to join my Facebook group, "Fulfillment at Any Age," to discuss today's blog, or to ask further questions about this posting. Copyright Susan Krauss Whitbourne, Ph.D. 2014 

Reference:

Nes BM, Vatten LJ, Nauman J, Janszky I, Wisløff U. (2014) A simple nonexercise model of cardiorespiratory fitness predicts long-term mortality. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 46(6):1159-65. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000219.

Image source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mikebaird/2953220416/

There is a great deal happening in the arena of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASDs), especially as pertains to policy development. In just the past few years a number of significant policies related to children with FASDs have emerged as the public and legislators have become more aware of the impact of prenatal alcohol exposure on child outcome.

The federal Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) requires that children reported into the child welfare system undergo concurrent planning for alternate forms of permanency placement beginning at 12 months of age if the birth parent(s) are not making significant progress toward drug and alcohol treatment goals. This legislation is grounded in the knowledge that the key period for brain development related to attachment occurs between 6 months and 3 years of life. During this period of time, an infant requires interactive, nurturing and consistent loving care for appropriate “pruning” (weeding out unnecessary neural connections in the brain) to occur. If a child is bouncing around in the child welfare system, or if a caregiver during this time cannot provide consistent care due to addiction or violence or other issues in the family, the child is at high risk for developing an attachment disorder and other mental health problems long term. ASFA provides a legislative focus for ensuring that by one year of age, children are being raised in an appropriate and consistent environment.

 The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) requires that physicians and other health care providers link to child protection services all children birth to three years of age who appear to have been affected by prenatal exposure to alcohol or illicit drugs. The child welfare system is then responsible for ensuring that the child receives early intervention services through the state’s IDEA program. The purpose of reporting the child to the state’s child protection services is not to remove the child from the birth mother’s custody, but to ensure that the child has access to early intervention services. This legislation is based in research that has demonstrated that identification and intervention for children with FASDs prior to six years of age significantly improves the child’s long-term developmental trajectory. States that recently have been moving toward lodging criminal charges against women who have used drugs during pregnancy or states that have developed policies that encourage removal of the child from the family are simply wrong. Children need to be with their mothers if that mother can provide the nurturing support the child must have. Then both mother and child can receive services that ensure best possible outcome.

 The American Bar Association’s recent policy recommendation regarding FASDs states that all court officials and lawyers should be educated about the behavior, development, and mental health challenges of individuals with FASDs. The statement goes further in raising the question as to whether prenatal alcohol exposure should be considered a mitigating factor in adjudication and sentencing. This policy recommendation is based in the neuroscience of FASDs that shows that individuals with FASDs have deficits in neurocognitive functioning, self-regulation, and adaptive behaviors. These deficits translate into the question of affected individuals’ ability to understand the consequences of their behavior, to comprehend the reason for the charges against them, and to participate in their own defense.

I’ve been thinking a great deal about these issues lately as our new film, Moment to Moment: Teens Growing Up with FASDs, gets ready to launch. Through this film, we are attempting to take the science of what is known about alcohol use in pregnancy and translate that information into a story format that can educate the public, professionals, and legislators about adolescents with FASDs.

Film can be an excellent medium for this science transfer. Educational research has shown that in order to enhance the public’s readiness to learn, to accept information, and to change behavior or practice, there are four basic requirements. The first requirement is "social validity.” That is, information is presented in a way that it fits with the viewer’s life and values. By watching the stories of adolescents with FASDs, everyone would agree that they want what is best for the children in the film.

The second requirement is that information be "in the moment." That is, it is easily accessible in the moment it is most important. After the stories pull the viewer into caring about the children, the scientific information that can guide assessment and treatment and promote the long term positive outcome of the child is presented. This link of story to science promotes integration of the information into long-term memory, which in turn will influence decision-making.

 The third requirement is "ecological validity." The information is delivered within an environment that is appropriate and non-threatening. Seeing a prevention message while watching a film in libraries, classrooms, and other educational environments, viewers are not going to feel personally affronted or threatened by the information.

The final component, "stakeholder participation," is attained because the viewers are given the opportunity to actively integrate the children’s stories with the scientific facts. Viewers feel in control of retrieving the information, which makes them active learners.

Through use of these four educational strategies, we can impact how a message is perceived, accepted, and perhaps how it can move policy and legislation forward. We have to get smarter about bringing science-based information to the public, avoiding hysteria while guiding complex decision-making and policy development. As policies are implemented, states, communities, and systems need to adhere to the scientific principles behind the policies and avoid reactive and punitive approaches that do not serve the best interests of children and families. Good science makes for good policies.

A person is being lazy if she is able to carry out some activity that she ought to carry out, but is disinclined to do so because of the effort involved. Instead, she carries out the activity perfunctorily; or engages in some other, less strenuous or less boring activity; or remains idle. In short, she is being lazy if her motivation to spare herself effort trumps her motivation to do the right or expected thing.

Synonyms for laziness are indolence and sloth. Indolence derives from the Latin indolentia, ‘without pain’ or ‘without taking trouble’. Sloth has more moral and spiritual overtones than laziness or indolence. In the Christian tradition, sloth is one of the seven deadly sins because it undermines society and God’s plan, and because it invites sin. The Bible inveighs against slothfulness, for example, in the Book of Ecclesiastes: 'By much slothfulness the building decayeth; and through idleness of the hands the house droppeth through. A feast is made for laughter, and wine maketh merry: but money answereth all things.'

Procrastination

Laziness should not be confounded with procrastination or idleness.

To procrastinate is to postpone a task in favour of other tasks, which, though perceived as easier or more pleasurable, are typically less important or urgent.

To postpone a task for constructive or strategic purposes does not amount to procrastination. For it to amount to procrastination, the postponement has to represent poor and ineffective planning, and result in a higher overall cost to the procrastinator, for example, in the form of stress, guilt, or loss of productivity. It is one thing to delay a tax return until all the figures are in, but quite another to delay it so that it upsets plans and people and triggers a fine.

Laziness and procrastination are similar in that they both involve a lack of motivation. But, unlike a lazy person, a procrastinator aspires and intends to complete the task and, moreover, does eventually complete it, albeit at a higher cost to himself.

Idleness

To be idle is: not to be doing anything. This could be because you are lazy, but it could also be because you do not have anything to do or are temporarily unable to do it. Or perhaps you have already done it and are resting or recuperating.

Idleness is often romanticized, as epitomized by the Italian expression dolce far niente (‘it is sweet to do nothing’). Many people tell themselves that they work hard from a desire to be idle, rather than because they value their work or its product. Although our natural instinct is for idleness, most people find prolonged idleness difficult to tolerate. Queuing for half an hour in a traffic jam can leave us feeling restless and irritable, and many drivers prefer to take an alternative route even if it is likely to take them longer than sitting through the traffic.

Recent research suggests that, though our instinct is for idleness, people will pick upon the flimsiest excuse to keep busy. Moreover, people feel happier for being busy, even if their busyness is imposed upon them. In their paper, Idleness aversion and the need for justifiable busyness (2010), Hsee and colleagues surmise that many purported goals that people pursue may be little more than justifications for keeping busy.

This, I believe, is a manifestation of the manic defence: the tendency, when presented with uncomfortable thoughts or feelings, to distract the conscious mind either with a flurry of activity or with the opposite thoughts or feelings. 'To do nothing at all,' said Oscar Wilde, 'is the most difficult thing in the world, the most difficult and the most intellectual.' I discuss the manic defence at some length in my book Hide and Seek: The Psychology of Self-Deception.

Albert Camus introduces his philosophy of the absurd in his essay of 1942, The Myth of Sisyphus. In the final chapter, he compares the absurdity of man’s life with the plight of Sisyphus, a mythological king of Ephyra who was punished for his chronic deceitfulness by being made to repeat forever the same meaningless task of pushing a boulder up a mountain, only to see it roll down again. Camus optimistically concludes, ‘The struggle to the top is itself enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' [‘La lute elle-même vers les sommets suffit à remplir un coeur d’homme. Il faut s’imaginer Sisyphe heureux.’]

It should be noted that many people who can seem bone idle are, in fact, nothing of the sort. Lord Melbourne, Queen Victoria’s favourite prime minister, extolled the virtues of ‘masterful inactivity’. As chairman and CEO of General Electric, Jack Welch spent an hour a day in what he called ‘looking out of the window time’. Adepts of strategic idleness use their ‘idle’ moments, among others, to observe and enjoy life, find inspiration, maintain perspective, circumvent pettiness, reduce inefficiency and half-living, and conserve their health and energies for truly important tasks and problems.

Evolutionary theories of laziness

Our nomadic ancestors had to conserve energy to compete for scarce resources and to fight or flee enemies and predators. Expending effort on anything other than short-term advantage could jeopardize their very survival. In any case, in the absence of conveniences such as antibiotics, banks, roads, or refrigeration, it made little sense to think long term. Desire led to action, and action led to immediate gratification, without much need for proposing, planning, preparing, and so forth.

Today, mere survival has fallen off the agenda, and it is long-term strategic activity that leads to the best outcomes. Yet, our instinct is still to conserve energy, making us reluctant to expend effort on abstract projects with delayed and uncertain payoffs.

Intelligence and perspective can override instinct, and some people are more future-oriented than others, whom, from the heights of their success, they deride as 'lazy'. Indeed, laziness has become so closely connected with poverty and failure that a poor person is often presumed lazy, no matter how hard he might actually work.

Psychological theories of laziness

In most cases, it is deemed painful to expend effort on long-term goals that do not provide immediate gratification. For a person to embark on a project, he has to value the return on his labour more than his loss of comfort. The problem is that he is disinclined to trust in a return that is both distant and uncertain. Because self-confident people are more apt to trust in the success and pay-off of their undertakings (and may even overestimate their likely returns), they are much more likely to overcome their natural laziness.

People are also poor calculators. Tonight they may eat and drink indiscriminately, without factoring in the longer-term consequences for their health and appearance, or even tomorrow morning's hangover. The ancient philosopher Epicurus famously argued that pleasure is the highest good. But he cautioned that not everything that is pleasurable should be pursued, and not everything that is painful should be avoided. Instead, a kind of hedonistic calculus should be applied to determine which things are most likely to result in the greatest pleasure over time, and it is above all this hedonistic calculus that people are unable to handle.

Many lazy people are not intrinsically lazy, but are lazy because they have not found what they want to do, or because, for one reason or another, they are not doing it. To make matters worse, the job that pays their bills may have become so abstract and specialized that they can no longer fully grasp its purpose or product, and, by extension, their part in bettering other peoples' lives. A builder can look upon the houses that he has built, and a doctor can take pride and satisfaction in the restored health and gratitude of his patients, but an assistant deputy financial controller in a large corporation cannot be at all certain of the effect of his labour—and so why bother?

Other factors that can lead to laziness are fear and hopelessness. Some people fear success, or do not have sufficient self-esteem to feel comfortable with success, and laziness is one way in which they can sabotage themself. Shakespeare conveys this idea much more eloquently and succinctly in Antony and Cleopatra: 'Fortune knows we scorn her most when most she offers blows.' Conversely, some people fear failure, and laziness is preferable to failure because it is at one remove. "It's not that I failed," they tell themselves, "it's that I never tried."

Other people are lazy because they see their situation as being so hopeless that they cannot even begin to think through it, let alone address it. Because these people do not have the ability to think through and address their situation, it could be argued that they are not truly lazy, and, to some extent, the same could be said of all lazy people. In other words, the very concept of laziness presupposes the ability to choose not to be lazy, that is, presupposes the existence of free will.

The solution

I could have ended this article with a self-help pep talk or the top-10 tips to overcome laziness, but, in the longer term, the only way to overcome laziness is to profoundly understand its nature and particular causes: to think, think, and think, and, over the years, slowly find a better way of living.

Neel Burton is author of Hide and Seek: The Psychology of Self-Deception, The Art of Failure: The Anti Self-Help Guide, and other books.

Find Neel Burton on Twitter and Facebook 

Aleisha*, a professional woman in her late twenties, loves her job but worries that she’s not good enough at it.  However, even though she often questions her abilities, the evidence is that she’s pretty good at it. A recent promotion and substantial raise should have boosted her self-confidence. But now she’s feeling even less secure than ever.

“I’m afraid they’re going to find out that I’m completely incompetent,” she tells a friend. “They’ll see that I’m a fraud…that I’ve been fooling them the whole time.”

What makes someone like Aleisha, an excellent student who graduated from high school and college with honors, who found a job shortly after graduation, and who has quickly moved up the career ladder in a profession that she loves, doubt her abilities at that job? And what can she do about it?

It may seem counterintuitive, but one answer to this question lies in its exact opposite – Aleisha’s narcissism. Although Aleisha feels doubtful and insecure, if you get her to talk to you about her academic and professional successes, she says, “Well, yes, I did really well in school…but maybe I fooled everyone all the way through…”

She will also tell you – with a little embarrassment – about her success on both her high school and college swim teams, where she won numerous races on her own and as part of a relay team. And she will admit that she was homecoming queen and that she is dating a man who is handsome, successful, and who loves her madly. “Well, at least I think he does,” she will add.

What’s up with this? She tells you about her successes, and then she tells you that they might not be real? Does this have something to do with low self-esteem?

But why would someone like Aleisha, who has seen nothing but success in her life, suffer from it?

A lot has been written about women’s low self-esteem, and while it is clear that it can be the result of painful, repeated life experiences and mistreatment, there is another, less well-known side to the phenomenon.

It’s related to, but not the same as a fear of success that many women struggle with. A lot has been written about how women worry about being seen as too aggressive, unfeminine, and basically unlovable. (I’ve listed two classics at the bottom of this blog if you’re interested in reading more about a psychological perspective on women’s fear of success.) But for now I’d like to focus on a different issue, one which affects both men and women, and often affects those of us who have good and loving parents and had a mostly happy childhood.

This is a fear of being narcissistic.

What does this mean? Simply that because narcissism has received such bad press in recent years, you, like many other well-intentioned, competent, even successful people you know may shy away from anything that makes you seem at all self-centered or overly self-involved. But something you should know is that not all narcissism is bad. There is also healthy narcissism – a normal, perfectly reasonable self love that makes us do good things, like take care of ourselves, set healthy boundaries, and even take pleasure in life.

So, you probably have read or heard that excessive narcissistic demands for attention and admiration can hide a vulnerable sense of self that is easily hurt, rejected or feels inferior. I don’t actually agree with that theory as a blanket for all narcissism, but that’s for another discussion. What I do agree with is that sometimes one thing can be a screen for its opposite.

In some cases, this can be the case for low self-esteem, which is actually hiding high self-regard. And I’m not talking about that kind of fake “Aw shucks, I’m not really so hot” that nobody buys. I’m talking about real problems with self-esteem, where you feel like you’re a failure or worse, or where you feel like you’re a fraud about to be exposed to the world at any minute.

How does it work?

Let’s say that you are feeling really good about yourself. You’ve done a great job at work, you are pleased with the fact that you keep your body pretty healthy, and you really like how you look, how you dress, and how you are living your life. How many friends will you make if you put that attitude out to the world? So maybe you unconsciously play down your success, or maybe you even knock yourself down a few notches by reminding yourself that no success is forever, that you’re only as good as your last accomplishment, or that your supervisor doesn’t really like you very much.

So then you become extremely vulnerable to any criticism. Your supervisor may suggest that you need to do some more work on a project before you present it to a senior official. You don’t hear this as helpful. Instead, you see it as confirmation of your inadequacies.

The painful thing is that this second group of thoughts and beliefs may be the ones you’re actually aware of. You don’t realize that there’s a self-confident person lurking behind the scenes, because that part of you feels dangerous, since you equate it with being a narcissist. If it peeps out for a moment, your unconscious squashes it immediately.

So what can you do?

1. First, you have to acknowledge that you really do have some good feelings about yourself. One way to do that is, in the privacy of your own room, where there’s no one around but you, ask yourself to name three things that you’re proud of. They can be anything. Actually, most people are surprised by what they come up with. It’s often not the most obvious, but something that you might think is almost silly. You may, for example, be a highly successful executive, but you’re proud of the taco casserole that’s your signature contribution to any family get together. Or like a dear friend of mine, a man who was a well-regarded scholar who had published numerous books and articles, you might be proud of the hat that you knit for your kid.
2. Once you’ve got a list of three things that you’re proud of, ask yourself what makes you so proud of them? For many of us, the things we’re proudest of involve overcoming some difficulty. My scholar friend can write a book in his sleep, almost; but learning to knit involved find motor coordination which has always been a bit elusive for him. His pride actually had nothing to do with the beauty of the hat (which he admitted was completely lopsided), but with the fact that he had worked really hard to accomplish it.
3. The problem with these accomplishments is that we are often embarrassed that they make us feel good. And we’re equally embarrassed that we need something so simple to enhance our self-esteem. If you don’t feel proud of your accomplishments at work, or if you happen to be someone who has a great body or beautiful hair, or any other quality that you feel you didn’t earn, you may have troubles feeling pleased with yourself. You may feel like a fraud. You may want to be recognized for the things you actually work at, not the things you got easily or just because.
4. Once you’ve realized what it is that makes you feel good about an accomplishment, try to remember it the next time you start to feel badly about yourself. Are you really feeling badly? Or is your hidden narcissism at play. Are you wanting to be recognized not for what you did well but easily, but for what you worked hard to accomplish?
5.  And now for the clincher – can you brag a little about some of these accomplishments? A little humor often helps. My scholar friend took pictures of the famous hat and put one in a frame on his desk, along with his photos of his family.  The thing is, most people don’t realize that behind a successful person can be a sad, hidden narcissist, so they don’t think to compliment you on the little accomplishments that mean so much to you. Give them a chance and you may be surprised to find that not only do you get some pats on the back for some of your hidden accomplishments, but your self-esteem may start to rise.

Oh yes. And don’t forget to compliment other people on their hidden accomplishments as well.

Please let me know if this makes any sense to you, and if you get any results from these exercises! And as always, other ideas and suggestions always appreciated!

 * names and identifying information changed to protect privacy

  Teaser image source: D 45529722 © Ximagination | Dreamstime.com

Harris, A. (1997). Aggression, Envy, and Ambition: Circulating Tensions in Women's Psychic Life. Gender and Psychoanalysis

Moulton (1986) Professional success: a conflict for women. In Psychoanalysis and Women: Contemporary Reappraisals, ed. J. Alpert, pp. 161-182. Hillsdale, NJ and London: Analytic Press.

In 2014 Ferrán Catalá-López and his colleagues from the University of Valencia in Spain reviewed the inverse association between cancer and neurological diseases including dementia. What they reported is that numerous studies have been showing that if you had one of these two diseases you are less likely to get the other. The first anecdotal evidence came more than fifty years ago when patients with Parkinson’s disease were reported to have a lower rate of cancers. More recently, this inverse relationship has also been documented for Alzheimer’s disease. In fact, this inverse relationships is most pronounced with Alzheimer’s disease and Huntington’s disease. While for cancer it is more pronounced for colorectal cancer and lung cancer. 

If you have had cancer you are 50% less likely to get Alzheimer’s disease.  While, if you have Alzheimer’s disease you are 60-70% less likely to get cancer. The same results do not exist for vascular dementia or Lou Gehrig's disease (ALS) and for some cancers such a melanoma, non-melanoma skin cancer and breast cancer.

There could be a number of reasons for this, and all could be working at the same time. It could be that once you are diagnosed with cancer or Alzheimer’s disease the focus of clinical care is on treatment and there might be less active interest in searching for additional diseases. However, this does not explain why it does not work with other diseases. It could be that the therapy for both diseases protects you from getting the other disease. Although plausible, it is unlikely. It could also be that the two diseases are separated by vulnerability in age and therefore if cancer kills you first you will not have the opportunity to get dementia. While being spared cancer you are then more likely get dementia. Although there are studies that dispel these arguments—some more conclusively than others—there is however a more subtle and persuasive argument.

There is a growing understanding of the chemical balance that is played in the body especially the process of generating energy for cells. The imbalance in this process—known as Glycolysis—of how the body converts sugar into fuel (pyruvate) for cells could be the balance that determines which of these two diseases you are likely to get. Too little fuel for cells—since neurons have such energy demands—and you get Alzheimer’s disease. Too much fuel, which feeds the erratic cells, and you get cancer.

Although this is an interesting avenue for biological and chemical research, there is an additional offshoot of this way of thinking…and that is the rejuvenation of the concept of homeostasis. That along a continuum of cancer or Alzheimer’s disease there is a balance. First described by Claude Bernard in 1865 and later coined by Walter Bradford Cannon in 1926, homeostasis requires three basis mechanisms. A sensor to detect changes, a mechanism that can modify that change, and a feedback connection between the sensor and a mechanism. The concept that homeostasis can determine Alzheimer’s disease has radical repercussions for psychologists because both the sensor and the mechanism can have psychological components. As an example, for the sensor being happy and content, tells the body that the system is in homeostasis, in balance while being stressed tells a different story. For the mechanism, being active, engaging and having tactile and sensory stimulation moderates and modulates our internal chemistry.

© USA Copyrighted 2014 Mario D. Garrett 

Introduction:

I began reading about the Ebola virus in the New York Times some forty years ago when it was limited to the African Rain Forest. Trained as biologist, before becoming a psychologist, I had studied parasitism and was interested in the biology of infectious diseases. I was concerned then and more concerned now.

We were told the symptoms of Ebola have an incubation period of 21 days; meaning it takes that long for an exposed person to become symptomatic. In reality, it’s often less than 21 days while 12% become symptomatic beyond 21 days. 21 days is the statistical average based on the limited African experience of detection, isolation, and burial; hardly a North American or European experience where more time is spent treating the patient and this involves repeated and prolonged exposures to infected patients.

The 21 day statistic of the World Health Organization (WHO), adopted by the overconfident and uncritical Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of the NIH, became the basis of their shared protocol; a protocol nurses found deficient in many ways. The "learning on the job" that followed has produced criticism and revisions that I have not kept track of. However, the failure of the WHO and CDC to be more proactive at the very beginning of the Ebola threat, and its recent spread among health care workers, is what troubles me; as does the fact that its occuring in the context of threats of bioterrorism.

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/hcp/infection-prevention-and-control...

Statistics and Medicine:

In previous blogs I’ve commented on the pillars of preventive medicine and how statistical analysis poses dangers to the “scientific” and “artistic” practice of medicine and public health. Statistics blind physicians, epidemiologists, and the pharmaceutical-industrial complex to the biochemical individuality and uniqueness of the patient which any protocol for the treatment of Ebola would better take into consideration.The statistical 21 days is a measure of the central tendency of a distribution of many observed incubation periods (i.e., data points). It represents the average incubation period found among Africans who suffer from nutritional deficiencies, parasitic loads, and destructive civil wars unlike North Americans or Europeans.

Let us not speak only of the invasiveness and aggression of the Ebola virus, but also of the resistance and susceptibility of victims. This is where biochemical individuality and culture play a role in determining the course and duration of any viral infection. Given the lethality of this virus and the initial uncertainties concerning prevention and treatment, doesn’t it makes sense to err in the direction of allowing a longer incubation period in order to pick up the 12% of those who become symptomatic after 21 days? I’m focusing on the 21 day statistic because it is an example of a problem facing medicine and epidemiology. It can contribute to the weakness of protocols developed by the WHO and CDC.

There are also questions concerning voluntary vs. mandatory quarantines, protective training, and other issues. As an example of "learning on the job," we have only to consider the public health decisions of New York and New Jersey authorizing mandatory quarantines in certain cases some three weeks after the Duncan case. 

__________

Approaching the statistical issue from a different perspective is David Freeman of the Huffington Post. He writes that the 21 day Ebola quarantine is “dangerously short.” Freeman cites evidence provided by Dr. Charles Haas supporting the expansion of the quarantine period beyond 21 days for anyone suspected of harboring the virus. The evidence is based on the fact that Ebola outbreaks in Zaire (1976) and Uganda (2000) involved several patients showing first symptoms of Ebola beyond 21 days.

The Washington Post also reports a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine that finds the incubation of the Ebola virus is often longer than 21 days. This is consistent with my general concern about any strict acceptance of the 21 day threshold which is only a mathematical average based on the African experience. It has questionable relevance for doctors, nurses, and aids treating patients in North America where contagion wasn’t supposed to happen during the course of providing prolonged IV injections, intubations, management of body fluids and waste products, etc.

In reality most individuals exposed to the Ebola become symptomatic between 8-10 days, with 12% becoming symptomatic after 21 days. Averaging these numbers gives us the 21 day statistic. But there is more: the capacity to infect others evolves during the incubation period. It isn’t “off” before 21 days and then “on” after 21 days. This demands greater margns of safety than the existing protocol provides because becoming symptomatic is a continuum of mounting risk based on the patient’s biological susceptibility and resistance. Given such uncertainties during the early stages of this or any epidemic, doesn’t it make sense to more aggressively implement preventive strategies such as mandatory quarantines that can be modified with experience. 

Statistical medicine, statistical pharmacology, and statistical epidemiology blind us to how individual’s respond to viruses like Ebola, and yet we continue to hear 21 days as some sort of absolute marker of risk. We need to be aware of the dangers of statistical medicine and epidemiology and make enlightened us of them in ways that don’t produce formulaic overconfidence In the face of complexity as is the case with the CDC embracing the WHO protocol.

It is the education of physicians, and the existing protocol, that resulted in a doctor’s travel about New York City following his treatment of West African patients as a member of Doctors Without Borders. Such behavior seems inconsistent with any rational proactive, preventive public health policy. In recent weeks the CDC appears to have abandoned its overconfidence, and the states of New York and New Jersey have revised the CDC protocol in response to recent developments.

Preventive Medicine:

As one who has been actively involved with preventive medicine concepts and practices, the lack of a strong proactive response to Ebola is disturbing, and one that has stimulated considerable public concern. There is a perceived lack of preparedness given the virulence and history of this virus. What I read in the New York Times years ago left me concerned, and to witness the unfolding of recent events is shocking in the context of continued theats of bioterrorism.

Many Missteps:

Revealing a lack of preparedness are many missteps beginning with the misdiagnosis of Thomas Duncan at the Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital at Dallas which contributed to his death on October 8th. It is now October 31st and revisions of the CDC protocol, based on a reaction to events rather than a professional anticipation of events, are unfolding faster than I can count or keep track of. It is the collection of initial missteps that concerns me. They reflect the degree to which we can have confidence in government and public health professionals when it comes to insuring our safety in an age of globalization, population densities, and changing climate conspiring to give us “the age of the virus," which promsies to something very new. I am referring to viruses not infectious bacteria or protozoa; although climate change and globalization favors them as well. .   

__________

As to missteps, consider the following: One nurse caring for Duncan, Nina Pham, tested positive in spite of following protective protocols, and ended up being treated at NIH. Another nurse got on a plane and flew to Cleveland to make wedding arrangements, became symptomatic, and ended up being treated at Emory hospital in Georgia. The usually overconfident voice of the CDC, Dr. Frieden, publically declared this nurse should “not have flown on a commercial airline.”

Other missteps in the initial domestic response to Ebola that interests me include the following: Dr. Kent Brantly, Nancy Writebol, and the NBC cameraman Ashoka Mukpo ended up being treated at the Nebraska Medical Center. It’s was not clear how they become infected. Was the CDC protocol good enough? Was it human error? Contact tracing resulted in the four people exposed to Duncan being quarantined for 21 days in Texas. Another person in Ohio who had contact with Vinson was also quarantined. The NBC medical editor, Dr. Nancy Snyderman, and her news team were also quarantined with Snyderman admitting “members of our group violated guidelines.” Was she (i.e., the doctor) the one?

The social disruption and cost of missteps is obvious. There were a total of seventy-five care givers treating Duncan at the Dallas hospital and they were ordered not to take public transportation or enter public places. All are expected to comply. Can we trust them? Forty-eight others having contact with Duncan are also being monitored for symptoms for 21 days. This will not pick up the 12% known to become symptomatic beyond twenty-one days.

There were nine people on each flight taken by Vinson between Dallas and Cleveland. They were asked to self-monitor themselves. Sixteen people in Ohio who had contact with Vinson were placed under quarantine and monitored for symptoms. A Dallas lab supervisor handling Duncan specimens boarded a Carnival Cruise Ship for a Caribbean vacation. That individual is now under voluntary quarantine. Vinson’s mother and fiancé are under quarantine and monitored for symptoms.

Finally, there are many questions concerning waste removal with some localities prohibiting incineration of wastes. Workers avoid handling such wastes out of fear of being contaminated. There is also the cost and complication of safely processing our soldiers when they return from infected West African nations before rejoining their families.These are substantial complications and expenses to be worked out. The psychological, social, and economic costs triggered by a single case of Ebola arriving in the U.S. from Africa are proving especially disruptive because of the lack of bureaucratic preparedness. More cases are expected to arrive on our shores following that of Dr. Craig Spencer of Doctors Without Borders who returned from treating patients in Guinea. Testing positive, he was admitted to New York’s Bellevue Hospital on October 23 and placed in isolation with others tracing his many contacts. Shouldn’t this doctor have known better? Shouldn't he have been quarantined immediately on a voluntary if not mandatory basis?

Conclusion:

Many Americans find themselves unnecessarily exposed and psychologically threatened by the Ebola virus in spite of protocols meant to protect us. Have we witnessed a breakdown of proactive, preventive medicine and the persistence of a reactive, crisis medicine mind-set? We have seen how nurses identified problems with the CDC protocol while disputing allegations of failures on their part. The cascade of missteps suggests a disturbing lack of early preparedness bordering on bureaucratic if not professional incompetence. Failures like this could have catastrophic consequences in today’s “age of the virus,” fanned by climate change, globalization, population densities, and terrorism. Do you suppose terrorists (i.e., today’s anarchists) take notice of all this? Isn’t this another reason why our collective response to Ebola is meaningful and consequential beyond ordinary circumstances and considerations?

There is enough blame to go around beginning with the failure of elected representatives to properly fund CDC and NIH, the historic and dysfunctional failure to resolve border issues, their ideological smoke, mirrors, and sophistry, their gerrymandering of safe districts killing rational congressional debate, and distortions of big money in politics. Lacking also is leadership, a better understanding of epidemiological, medical and pharmaceutical statistics, and a better understanding of the difference between proactive preventive medicine and reactive crisis medicine at all levels of public health.

© Dr. Leon Pomeroy, Ph.D.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beyond-good-and-evil

We all deal with people who make us uncomfortable, perhaps exhaust us, even scare us. The just published book, Dangerous Personalities, based on two decades of talking to and studying victims and perpetrators, alerts us to four categories of such people and how to respond.

Its author knows from whence he speaks. Joe Navarro spent 25 years as an FBI agent and supervisor, specializing in behavioral assessment  He is one of the founding members of the FBI’s elite Behavioral Analysis Program and now consults and lectures on human behavior. Dangerous Personalities is Navarro’s sixth book, preceded by, for example, the classic book on reading body language, What Every Body is Saying.

I spoke with Joe Navarro yesterday.

Marty Nemko: Your book identifies four types of dangerous personalities and includes a 100+ item checklist for identifying each. For each of those four personality types, are there a few that are most central?

Joe Navarro: Yes but before I list them, I want to stress that they shouldn’t be used to label people. The proper use of the checklist is this: The more of these behaviors you observe, the more attention you should pay. Do recognize that the more serious or increasing these behaviors are, the more likely the person is to victimize you physically, emotionally, mentally, or financially.

Warning Signs of the Narcissistic Personality

• Expects to be treated as special and to be given priority.

• In words and actions, overvalues himself or herself and devalues others.
• Doesn’t care about you…unless you can help him or her.
• Is a poor listener unless s/he stands to gain.
• Needs to control others and demands loyalty.
• Rarely appears guilty nor apologizes for wrongdoings.
• Seeks advantage rather than justice.

 Emotionally Unstable Personality

• Needs to be the center of attention in relationships, needs excessive caring and reassurance, and dreads abandonment to the point of making threats or acting out physically.
• Regularly plays “victim” or “princess” to get special attention.
• Relationships are a roller coaster of highs and lows, and you often can’t relax around this person. Indeed you often feel drained and/or frustrated.
• With a short fuse, displays anger disproportionate to the circumstances.
• Arguments that should last a few minutes may go on for hours.
• To deal with this person, you have to check if s/he’s in an acceptable mood.
• Often fluctuates between expressing love and hate for the same person.
  

Paranoid Personality

• Is unduly suspicious of people, neighbors, even news events, believing others seek to hurt or exploit him.

• Is highly moralistic and judgmental.
• Tries to strictly control family members.
• Is very guarded, secretive, and scheming, and thinks others are that way.
• Is a “wound collector,” vigilant to find social slights. Holds grudges for a long time.
• Claims that failings at work, life, or in relationships have been others’ fault, an effort to keep her “down.”
  

The Predator

• Takes advantage of people, for example, parasitically uses others to provide housing, food, money, or sex. May fail to pay debts.
• Has talked about having a dark, mean, or evil side.
• Without concern, puts others at financial, physical, or criminal risk.
• While often callous and cold, can be charming and seductive.
• Routinely lies to get what s/he wants. Even enjoys lying.
• Routinely skirts rules and laws even if that hurts someone.
• Is arrogant, may think s/he is a “legend in his own mind.”

MN:  Are such people easily identifiable?

JN: Not necessarily.Sometimes, their toxic behavior can be subtle and grow so slowly you don’t become concerned until it’s too late. Talk with survivors of Jonestown and you’ll see how people can come to accept even very extreme behavior as normal.

Remember too, that often, we may piece together a person’s behaviors as a dangerous personality only when considering a long period of time. For example, you may not have remembered the put-downs, slights, lies, or petty thefts, but now as things have gotten worse, it all comes together to paint a clearer picture.

MN: How should you interact with each of the four types?

JN:   First, some general advice. If these behaviors are making you uncomfortable, yes, it’s possible it’s you, but it’s more likely them. Don’t prematurely dismiss your feelings. Those behaviors on the checklist violate the boundaries of normal behavior and if they occur too frequently or intensely, beware.

Perhaps check out your perceptions with others. Not only will that help confirm that you have reason for concern, it can provide you with support if that person is—at least for now--unavoidably part of your life: boss, spouse, or other family member.

Specific to the four personality types:

Narcissist: Early on, let the person know you won’t tolerate being disrespected. Keep a log or email yourself to a private account every time s/he abuses or degrades you.

Emotionally Unstable: Don’t buy into the person’s emotional drama, in which they try to blame you. If s/he drains your patience, energy, and understanding, set hard boundaries. Otherwise you’ll likely pay a high price.

Paranoid: They will try to get you to buy into their rigid, unrealistic ideation, which often ignores facts. Try to avoid engaging with them as there is no persuading such people. And of course, if their proposed solution is violence, at minimum, distance yourself, and if you’re concerned enough, contact the police.

Predator: Don’t let down your guard when it comes to, for example, your safety or your finances. They will try to control you or that which you value. Distance or avoidance are your best recourses.

MN: If you can’t distance yourself, what might you do?

JN: I’ve often wondered if Nicole Brown Simpson had gone to the police with checklist in hand and said, “My ex-husband has done these things to me,” whether the problem could have been addressed before it was too late.

MN: If a person wants to see a therapist or counselor about it, what might s/he do?

JN: He or she might show the relevant checklist items to jumpstart an exploration of what is really going on, and whether and how it could be fixed. That also can help you assess your options and the extent to which you’re in danger.

MN: Any self-help strategies?

JN: Well, my book contains a 14-page bibliography that may help those who have or are affected by a dangerous personality.

MN: In your personal life, have you had to deal with someone with a dangerous personality,

JN: Yes of course, all of them both on a personal level and professionally. These individuals can be draining, taxing, exasperating, and they can take advantage of us financially as well as emotionally. 

MN: What did you do and how did it work out? 

JN: When I was younger, I almost always gave these four personality types too much leeway. In some cases I thought I could fix them or prevail over them logically while at other times I was too generous with my time, my finances, and to myself and family.  In time I learned to quickly spot these people before they could do more harm. Most importantly I learned that no one has a social obligation to be victimized--ever. 

MN: What's next for Joe Navarro? 

JN: Lecture, read, write, spend more time with my wife; repeat. When I retired from the FBI, this was the book I wanted to publish. Now that it’s out, I can exhale.

Marty Nemko's bio is in Wikipedia.

The further the halcyon days of undergraduate life, receed the more happy and content they appear to have been. Wistful days spent by the sea,or lake or a river; brilliant lectures by erudite Professor; passionate debates fueled by cheap red wine; and, most delightfully, frolics in the afternoon. Most universities are eager to cash in on those happy memories in their donation-oriented, ever glossier magazines.

Some people never want to leave university and spend years collecting degree after degree up to the mystical PhD. Surprisingly, one manifestation of a mid-life crisis, is to "think about" doing a PhD. People might be stuck in a rut (at any age), or feel they need a change. Empty nesters, those who have "achieved financial independence", some wanting a career switch - all types consider the idea.

They have numerous fantasies about the PhD. All that "free time" to develop potential brilliant ideas. The company of all those other seriously bright people. The book(s) that might result. And, of course, being called Doctor. Memories of those glorious summers and fantasies about a sublime stress-free, book-lined future seem irresistible. Not at all the same as a greed oriented MBA just aimed at getting a higher salary

But what about reality? Few people have seen or handled a PhD. Most have not talked to those "writing up". And clearly none have spoken to those many part-timers but also full-timers who dropped out.

There are a number of factors that should make the idealist cautious. First, cost. A PhD costs an adult around $150,000. Possibly more. Whence the figure? On average a PhD takes 3 to 4 years to complete. Assuming an opportunity cost based on the average wage this will be around $90,000. Most potential PhD students should be earning more, so this is a pretty conservative number. Add to this fees, living costs and sundries at, let's say, $25,000 a year (which can be much more in big cities) and we get another $75,000.

So it's a six figure number for a piece of paper that guarantees nothing. It might be a great experience, but then it should be for that amount of money.

A PhD is essentially an apprenticeship in skills. Just as in the medieval guilds when one "learnt the trade" by being apprentice to a master. Indeed, the concept of master classes has just been revived. Lawyers and accountants still go through a similar process. It can be slow and tedious and is certainly expensive, but thought the best way to do things. You learn the skills of your trade: doing good, publishable research in a particular discipline, area and speciality.

Everything however depends on the supervisor(s) and (where appropriate) committee; not the reputation of the university or the department, but the skill, temperament, ability and above all motivation of the supervisor, who has many roles to play. They are "in loco parentis", but they are also teacher and exemplar; instructor and model; educator and counsellor.

It is a difficult, complex relationship. Both student and teacher may have different needs and styles that can make the relationship fraught. The anxious, dependent student and the cavalier supervisor; the brilliant but lazy student and the conscientious supervisor could lead to obvious problems. Personality, values and ability differences can cause unforeseen and tricky problems. And, at least in the sciences, Phd work may be team work. The brilliant don has a large team: the lab has a programme and you are expected to slot into it.

Students have to acquire the skills of the discipline. They all have to learn how to access and evaluate current learning. They have to learn technical skills as well as advanced numeracy and literacy. They need to acquire presentation skills. And perhaps, more importantly, how to handle biting sometime anonymous criticism….and rejection

Some come with many of the skills pretty advanced. Indeed, by the end of the PhD, it is not unusual for the student to be more skilled than the supervisor, particularly when it comes to technical issues. Inevitably the techies are not so hot on writing, while the scribblers can't always easily pick up the technology.

A British (and many European) PhD is examined orally. Having read the thesis in detail two examiners grill the candidate for anything between two and six hours. Very few pass outright. They may have to make minor or major alterations, the latter taking as much as another year of work. Less happy outcomes include a downgrade to a masters degree or a downright failure.

Examiners look for many things: command and critical reading of the current literature; a mastery of the methodology in the areas; the ability to formulate and answer good questions/hypotheses; and whether parts of the thesis are publishable according to the peer-review criteria.

Originality and innovation are, curiously, not the paramount criteria. Naive applicants have the image of PhD research being characterized by startling originality. It may be. Indeed it's good if it occurs, but it must be accompanied by evidence of technical skill.

The Worshipful Company of Doctors of Philosophy, like all guilds, strives to keep up standards; to admit only those whose apprenticeship has fulfilled the exacting criteria of the day.

Three to five years of intellectual stimulation, self-fulfillment and the opportunity to be creative and discover your talents. Or a hard slog, in abject poverty, with few career opportunities? Doing a PhD can have elements of both of these extremes. Don’t make the decision lightly. Do a hard-headed and clear minded cost-benefit analysis

Taking a test—and specifically, the memory retrieval process that testing entails—enhances learning. This blog post is about a new study that sheds light on why retrieval is beneficial. 

Background

When you take a test, one of three things happens. Your answer is right, your answer is wrong, or you don’t answer. Many studies have shown that tests are better than rereading when you mix all of these together. But recent studies have tried to separate them. 

Intuitively it makes sense that tests would be good when you get the answer right—and it is. A bunch of recent studies have asked a less intuitively obvious question: what happens when you get it wrong or don’t answer on the test? 

In a typical study, one condition is shown a question and answer like “what sport is the most common cause of eye injuries in the United States? — Baseball.” The other condition is shown the same question, without the answer. After trying to answer and getting it wrong or leaving it blank (the results are about the same either way) they are shown the correct answer. 

These studies have consistently shown that being tested enhances learning even when you get the answer wrong, or leave it blank, on the test. 

The new studies

Why does retrieval enhance learning? That’s the question I ask in a new paper with collaborators Katherine Rawson and Patricia Jacobs Klein. We start with the premise that retrieval attempts enhance learning even if they’re unsuccessful. Then we take it one step further. We ask: Does retrieval success matter at all? In other words, retrieval always involves a retrieval attempt. The question is, if you make an attempt, does it matter whether you arrive at the answer…

• ...by thinking of it yourself
• ...by being told the answer

This question is hard to answer. You can’t just compare these two types of items because prior knowledge is different—people obviously know the ones they can answer better than the ones they can’t. What’s required is random assignment: You need to start with two equivalent groups of items and randomly assign some to be retrieved and some not. But how do you randomly assign retrieval success? Here’s what our participants did (this is experiment 6 from our paper; experiment 3a and 3b were similar):

• Study word pairs
• Take a test for 6 seconds
• If you don’t think of the right answer on that test, either…
• ...see the answer (no retrieval condition)
• ...see the answer with missing letters and retrieve the answer (retrieval condition)
• Later, take a final test

If retrieval success matters, then participants should do better in the retrieval condition. But notice that because of the initial test (for 6 seconds), everyone makes a retrieval attempt. If retrieval attempts are the important thing, and it doesn’t matter how you arrive at the answer, then these conditions should produce equal performance on the final test. 

What happened? There was no difference between the conditions. As long as participants made a retrieval attempt, it didn’t matter how they arrived at the answer. 

(Note: other experiments in the paper confirm that the missing letters condition does enhance learning in standard paradigms where it isn’t preceded by a retrieval attempt, and that these results can’t be explained by better guessing based on semantic memory. We demonstrated these findings in 3 experiments and then replicated them in another three experiments.) 

Implicaitons

We started by asking: Why does retrieval enhance learning? These results suggest that retrieval attempts are the key. One way to look at it is: retrieval is beneficial because it gets you to try to retrieve, but it’s not beneficial because of retrieval itself. 

These findings don’t have big practical implications. Don’t conclude that items you can retrieve benefit from tests as much as items you can’t, because those items aren’t equivalent—ours were equivalent because we intentionally made it so to investigate a theoretical question. 

But the theoretical implication seems important. It is not the case that tests have direct benefits (retrieval success) and indirect benefits (unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance subsequent learning). These mechanisms are one and the same. If you make a retrieval attempt, learning benefits, regardless of how you arrive at the answer. 

Check me out on Twitter.