Social-Psych

The Case for Nurturant Parenting: Mary Ainsworth and The Strange Situation

2012-01-26T02:54:00.002-05:00

Psychologist Mary Ainsworth

In my previous post, I mentioned how the monkeys in each group interacted with each other after isolation. Some were fearful, some were anxious, and some were calm. This has to do with their attachment abilities, which is formed during the critical period. If damaged enough, this attachment can continue into adulthood and affect all future relationships. Even if a child is not kept solely in isolation, the quality of care it receives will affect its attachment to its parents and future relationships. Psychologist Mary Ainsworth explored the different types of infant attachments with her experiment, the Strange Situation.

In her procedure, Ainsworth would place the mother and infant in a playroom, where the baby is free to explore the room. In a series of tests, the baby is introduced to a stranger with the mother present and left with the stranger while the mother leaves, is left alone, and is reunited with the mother. Ainsworth gauges the behaviors and reactions of the child to assess its attachment to the caregiver, placing the child in one of 4 categories: Secure Attachment, Anxious-Resistant Attachment, Anxious-Avoidant Attachment, or Disorganized/Disoriented Attachment.

Caretaker playing with her child in the Strange Situation test

In most cases the child will have a secure attachment, in which it is confident in the caregiver's ability and uses the caregiver as a 'secure base' for exploration. The child will show a balance between exploration and proximity to the caregiver. In the Strange Situation, he or she will actively leave the caregivers side to explore the room and will play with the stranger while still nearby the caregiver. In the absence of the mother, it will become distressed and cannot be comforted by the stranger but will seek comfort once reunited with the caregiver, followed by a return to play.

The mother, infant, and stranger in the Strange Situation

Alternatively, infants with anxious attachments do not use the caretaker as a secure base for exploration. There are two types of anxious attachment: anxious-resistant and anxious-avoidant. Anxious-resistant infants tend to seek constant contact with their caregiver and has difficulty separating. They are wary of the room, new toys, and especially the stranger. At the slightest distress, they will hurry back to the caretaker's side, even it if means not playing with the toys. When the mother leaves, they will become very upset and cannot be comforted by the mother upon return; they will continue to cry. Even more, the child will switch between maintaining close contact and resisting close contact. They may cry out to be picked up, then squirm and kick away from their mother's arms. They act as though their mothers can never fill their needs.

Infants with anxious-avoidant attachments differ in behaviors but are similar in their distinction from a healthy attachment. They will readily separate from their mothers to explore and are not wary of the stranger. In addition, they show no emotion when their mothers leave the room but will actively avoid her upon return by ignoring her, turning away, or moving away. They will not, however, behave this way towards the stranger. After a second separation, the child will continue to avoid the mother. The more stressful the situation, the more they will avoid interaction with their caregivers.

A chart categorizing the behaviors of each attachment

The fourth attachment type shown in the Strange Situation is disorganized-disoriented attachment. These infants do not fit into the other three categories and are often the victims of abuse. Their caregivers may also be threatening, frightening, or just plain odd. There is an internal conflict in that they yearn for attachment naturally, but will also withdraw out of fear of the caregiver. They can't maintain a concrete strategy for attachment and will either display signs of conflicting types of attachment or will appear dazed and disoriented. Their actions will be contradictory, such as reaching for the caregiver while looking away, and their movements will be slow or scattered. Their emotions and behaviors will also be scattered during play. Infants in this category have been linked to psychopathology later in life.

Infants seek out attachment to caretakers from birth

Ainsworth's Strange Situation demonstrates the natural attachment achieved through a healthy caregiver-infant relationship as well as the flawed and sometimes detrimental attachments that are the result of an unhealthy relationship or improper care. These attachments will affect relationships later in life. This test can be used to spot and correct attachment or parenting issues early on, or to assess the quality of care being given and identify neglect. I think this test also makes a clear point, in that the quality of nurturant care greatly affects future attachments and can even lead to severe personality disorders.

Bonus:

Footage from a Strange Situation test.

The Inherent Need for Nurturant Parenting: Harry Harlow and "The Nature of Love"

2012-01-08T15:04:00.003-05:00

Harry Harlow poses with a baby rhesus monkey

In my Feral Children post, I meantioned that children who are not exposed to nurturant care during critical periods rarely develop properly. We as human beings require nurturant care but it doesn't stop with humans — it is apparent throughout the animal kingdom as well, and this observation can help us learn more about human development. One psychologist who laid the groundwork for studies in human development is Harry Harlow, who observed rhesus monkeys in a series of experiments between 1957-1963, collectively titled "The Nature of Love".

Harlow aimed to prove that a mother's love was essential for growth and how nurture during the critical periods early in life helps the infant form emotional attachments, both at a young age and later in life and how it impacts development.

The wire mesh mother

Harlow took newborn rhesus monkeys from their mothers 4-6 hours after their birth and separated them into three groups. The first group were kept in complete isolation. They were fed, but had no little to no social interaction. The second group was placed in a cage with an artificial mother made entirely of wire mesh and a wooden head, with a nipple attached to a feeding bottle, similar to a mother monkey. The monkeys in the third group were kept with with the same wire mesh mother, but this model was covered in a soft terry cloth, similar to the warmth and fur of a mother monkey.

Raised in isolation, interactions between these monkeys are anxious at best

After 6 months of this isolation, Harlow recorded its impact on the monkeys behaviors. The first group tended to be passive, anxious, and fearful. The monkeys in the second group were also unable to interact with others when placed together. The third group, when placed together, was able to interact successfully. In further tests, Harry found that the damage caused to monkeys exposed to only 3 months of isolation could be reversed with proper care, but after six months the emotional and behavioral damages would remain permanent.

A rhesus monkey lays by the cloth mother for security

In another facet of the experiment, Harlow would keep a monkey in a cage with both the solely wire mother and the cloth mother. The wire mother had the feeding bottle attachment, while the cloth mother did not. At that time, the expectation was that the monkeys' attachment would be to the mother who supplied food and Harlow wanted to observe which mother the monkeys would cling to—the source of nutrition or the source of comfort. Every time, the monkeys overwhelmingly preferred the cloth mother and would stay by her side for the majority of the day, only leaving to feed.

Harlow with a monkey clinging to the cloth mother

Harry Harlow's experiments demonstrated the power of early experience. Even monkeys who spent their critical periods with other monkeys showed some of the same fearful and anxious behaviors; the key factor was the presence of a nurturant figure. His theories were also used in support of adoption, showing that the nurturant care—regardless of biological relationship—could facilitate healthy development.

Bonus: Footage of Harry Harlow explaining and demonstrating his experiment.

Hiatus

2011-12-13T22:30:00.000-05:00

Unfortunately I haven't had the time to post anything in a while because I've been knee deep in schoolwork. It's finals week, so after I finish my exams next week I'm gonna roll out a bunch of stuff while I'm on break to make up for the lack of posts this semester. Wish me luck on my finals!

The Development, Popularization, and Demise of the Lobotomy

2011-11-23T22:48:00.003-05:00

Dr. Walter Freeman & Dr. James Watts perform a lobotomy on Alice Hood Hammett

In an era of experiments and development, neuroscientists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals continued their quest into understanding the human mind and trying to cure abnormalities. With the constant discoveries of new illnesses and overcrowded mental wards, psychiatrist Antonio Egas Moniz stepped up to the plate with a procedure that would become one of the most controversial in recent history.

Moniz performed the first lobotomy, called a prefrontal leukotomy, in 1935. He hypothesized that since some psychoses cause malformed thought processes that affect normal functioning, he could sever the nerves connecting the frontal cortexes and the thalamus to disband the connection and calm patients. In the prefrontal leukotomy, the patient was anesthetized and two holes were drilled on either side of the skull and a long leucotome was inserted into the brain tissue and lightly moved back and forth to destroy nerve fibers. Since this procedure was done blindly, it had mixed results. Some patients had great results while others had little to no improvement, and a few developed even worse symptoms.

Soon after, American neurologist Walter Freeman had been closely studying Moniz and his still experimental procedure and decided to start performing the procedure in the United States with his partner James Watts. They were relatively unsuccessful, with many patients suffering seizures or having the knife break off in the brain. Freeman longed to make history in his field and altered his procedure in the hopes of following in Moniz's Nobel prize-winning footsteps. He pioneered what came to be known as the transorbital lobotomy.

A prison guard preparing an inmate for a lobotomy

In Freeman's new procedure, he would insert an instrument closely resembling an icepick into the eye socket, right above the eye. He would then hit the end of the icepick with a hammer to drive it in further, and swivel the pick around to sever the prefrontal lobe's nerve connections. The entire outpatient procedure took around 10 minutes and many were done shortly after shocking the patient into unconsciousness, similar to ECT, or even without any form of anesthesia. He would perform these lobotomies anywhere and everywhere; many were done in his office, in mental hospitals, or in prisons. He went on tours training other psychiatrists how to perform his lobotomy and it became highly publicized and popular; Freeman would welcome journalists and the press to watch him operate on what seemed like a production line of patients.

Freeman performing a procedure while journalists, nurses, and doctors watch.

Freeman's partner, Watts, grew disgusted with how casually Freeman performed his gruesome procedures and soon disassociated himself from him and the lobotomy itself. Some other doctors found it ethically distressing but with such prestige and with the field of neurology being so small, Freeman still faced little opposition and instead achieved the recognition he desired; the media hailed his lobotomy as a cure-all for any ailment, not just severe mental illness. It transformed from a last-resort for psychosis into a miracle procedure; it was used on disruptive teenagers, inmates, housewives who grew tired of housework, and even frequent headaches. Needless to say, it took mental hospitals by storm and countless patients were lobotomized to both combat overcrowding or as a form of punishment, whether the patient needed it or not.

12 year-old Howard Duffy receiving a lobotomy, as per his stepmothers request.

In the aftermath of tens of thousands of lobotomies, the growing numbers of failures, cases of severely negative side affects (memory loss, loss of motor skills, being reduced to a vegetative state, etc.) and many deaths spoke as a testament against Freeman's craze. Scientific developments failed to find evidence supporting the claims of the benefits of lobotomies and ethical concerns mounted, both with the public and inside the scientific community. The procedure was eventually abandoned in favor of a new method, medication. Antipsychotic and antidepressive drugs such as chlorpromazine became widely available, thus ending one of the most barbaric aspects of the last century's psychological history.

Bonus #1:

PBS produced a documentary about Walter Freeman called "The Lobotomist". You can buy it on their website or watch the preview below:

Bonus #2:

A list of the top 10 most notable lobotomies, including actor famous Walter Baxter and John F. Kennedy's sister, Rosemary Kennedy.

The History of Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT)

2011-10-13T19:00:00.001-04:00

Electroconvulsive Therapy or ECT is based off early discoveries around 1927 by neuropsychiatrist Manfred Sakel who observed improvement in the symptoms of schizophrenic patients after being given an overdose of insulin, causing seizures. In the 1930's, clinical researchers noticed a correlation between epileptic seizures and psychosis--patients with epilepsy were rarely psychotic and psychotic patients rarely had epilepsy. This lead to a false conclusion that brain seizures or convulsions prevented psychosis. Encouraged by this logic, clinicians began to search for ways to induce these seizures and after several different experiments, Italian psychiatrist Ugo Cerletti discovered that he could produce these seizures more safely by applying electric currents to the heads of patients, and thus Electroconvulsive Therapy came into fruition.

Since there was very little research done regarding the effects of ECT, earlier methods were more of a trial-and-error to the procedure. Doctors eager to administer this "breakthrough" armed with a lack of knowledge or universal practice guidelines made this therapy somewhat savage. In the beginning, conscious patients were strapped down to a bed, and two electrodes were attached to each side of the head. Roughly 100 or more volts were then sent through the brain for a half of a second, resulting in brain convulsions/gran mal seizures. Even though patients were secured to a gurney, many still suffered broken and fractured bones and vertebrae. Another major side effect of the treatment was memory loss, meaning most patients would not remember the shock or the moments leading to or following after and in some cases, developed severe memory issues following the treatments.

Actor Jack Nicholson's character, Randle McMurphy, receiving ECT

To treat psychosis and depression, the treatments were administered often, usually weekly or biweekly. At the peak of its use, some mental health facilities began to use it as a form of control or punishment for their patients, regardless of whether or not they needed it. These practices coupled with the broken bones and conscious patients gave it a seemingly barbaric image and caused many clinicians to move away from the practice, leading to research into psychotropic medications instead. The book and film "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" portrayed the use of ECT as punishment in a mental health facility, which served to further discredit the treatment.

Since then, however, Electroconvulsive Therapy has undergone many changes to make it a much safer, more humane procedure. A smaller voltage is used and the patients are given anesthetics and muscle relaxants to put them to sleep and preventing bone fractures caused by dramatic convulsions. In some cases, the electrodes are only applied to the right side of the brain (called unilateral ECT), since the left side is the site of language and auditory memory. Memory loss is still an issue, although usually minor and will clear up shortly after the treatment. ECT is used primarily for unipolar and severe depression, with a 60-80% improvement rate.

So, what do you think? Would you ever try or support Electroconvulsive therapy as an alternative to medications, or do you think it's still barbaric?

Bonus #1:

A look at early ECT procedures.

Bonus #2:
In this TED talk, Sherwin Nuland discusses the history of ECT and more

Little Albert Experiment - Conditioned Fear

2011-08-23T21:01:00.001-04:00

In 1920, American psychologist John B. Watson conducted a case study about classical conditioning at Johns Hopkins University. After Ivan Pavlov's physiological experiment, he was inspired to take it further and test emotional conditioning. He wanted to prove that through conditioning, he could cause a child with a neutral or positive response to a stimulus to fear it and related stimuli.

In his study, Watson used a white rat, a rabbit, a dog, a fur coat, a monkey, masks with and without hair, a monkey, etc. as the stimuli and struck a steel rod with a hammer to incite the fear response. When introduced to the animals/furry things, baby Albert was either neutral towards the stimulus or elicited a positive response, as in the case of the white rat, which he enjoyed.

After introducing Albert to the stimuli and recording his responses, Watson reintroduced them paired with the loud sound whenever the baby attempted to interact with the stimuli. Naturally, Albert became upset and cried, while still in the presence of the stimulus. After multiple pairings, Watson removed the loud sound from the experiment, but Albert still showed signs of distress when introduced to the previous stimuli or related stimuli, such as a Santa Claus costume with a beard made of cotton balls.

Shortly after the experiment concluded, Albert was taken to a hospital with the intention of desensitizing him, although this was never fully completed. Unfortunately, little Albert died 5 years later of an unrelated condition, preventing further research on the effects of the experiment throughout his adult life.

I think this experiment can be associated with fear mongering, where fear is used to influence the opinions or beliefs of others. Politicians, religious extremists, the news media, etc. use fear mongering as a way to spread and idea or belief. Something universally feared may be combined with whatever idea the fear mongering party wants to us to see as negative, just as advertisers combine something universally pleasant with their product to drive our desire to purchase it. Images of terrorist attacks may be paired with the Islam religion to incite racial or religious prejudice. Pictures or threats of STDs may be paired with pictures of men or women to encourage abstinence. As in the picture below, chaos is paired with the mention of communism to further the "Red Scare".

What do you think? Do you think some of our ideas have been driven by propaganda or fear? Do you feel some of your beliefs were bred out of fear?

Bonus #1:
Footage of the Little Albert experiment:

Bonus #2:
This is a campaign advertisement from Lyndon Johnson, pairing a nuclear war with his opponent, Barry Goldwater.

The Stanford Prison Experiment

2011-08-14T20:40:00.007-04:00

Today marks the 40th anniversary of the start of The Stanford Prison Experiment. It can easily be called one of the most famous and influential experiments of the last century. This experiment by psychologist Philip Zimbardo aimed to prove how achieved roles can change human behavior. It was funded by the Office of Naval Research to determine what caused conflicts between military guards and prisoners. However, it quickly turned into a real life 'Lord of the Flies' and showed a rapid degeneration of social and moral standards among many participants and highlighted the possible dark nature that lies within humanity.

Zimbardo gathered 18 male college student volunteers to participate in the two-week experiment, with nine chosen to be guards and nine being prisoners. The basement of the psychology building at Stanford University was converted into a mock prison with three tiny cells to hold three prisoners each where they were to stay all day and night, "The Yard" aka a corridor where prisoners were allowed to walk, eat, and exercise, "The Hole" which was a small closet that served as solitary confinement, and a bathroom, although prisoners were blindfolded when taken to the restroom so they 'would not know the way out of the prison'.

Prisoners:
The ones chosen to be prisoners were greeted by a Palo Alto police officer who promptly arrested them for 'armed robbery', handcuffed them, and took them in a cruiser to a holding cell where they were booked, fingerprinted, and had their mugshot taken. They were blindfolded and transported to the mock prison, called "Stanford County Prison" where they were greeted by the "warden" (Zimbardo) who told them how serious their offense was and that they were now a prisoner. They were then searched, stripped, and deloused. The prisoners were given a uniform"—a dress/smock worn with no underwear that bore the prisoners ID number, the only way they were to be addressed. This was to keep the prisoners anonymous, as if they had no identity. They also wore nylon stockings on their heads to simulate having their heads shaved to take away any individuality and had a heavy chain bolted around their ankles that must be worn at all times to serve as a constant reminder of their incarceration.

Guards:
The guards were instructed by Zimbardo that they were not to use any physical force, but were free to do whatever else they felt necessary to maintain order. They made up their own sets of guidelines and rotated 8 hour shifts, after which they were allowed to return home but remained on call. As you can see in the picture above, they were given khaki uniforms, a wooden baton (which they were not allowed to use; it was merely a symbol of their status), and mirrored sunglasses (to prevent eye contact, taking away the human element and making them seem more authoritative).

Results:
The first day was uneventful, as both the prisoners and the guards were still becoming accustomed to their roles. On the morning of the second day, however, the prisoners had taken off their stocking caps, ripped their identification numbers off their uniforms, and barricaded their cell doors with their beds, refusing to come out. The guards called for backup from the off-duty officers and devised a plan, and attacked the prisoners with fire extinguishers while breaking down the doors.

The guards also implemented what they called "counts", by ordering the prisoners to line up in "The Yard" and recite their ID numbers. This supposed roll call was used not only to assert authority, but also to make prisoners memorize their prison numbers and internalize the idea that this number was their sole identity.

Mattresses, food, and using the bathroom all became privileges. Prisoners were routinely punished by being forced to sleep on the floor, being denied bathroom access, and being forced to do push-ups. Some prisoners were also forced to strip naked as a form of humiliation. In general, the guards began to see the prisoners as troublemakers and general threats to their well-being. Their behavior became alarmingly sadistic and it was apparent their absolute power was corrupting them.

The prisoners rebelled slightly in the beginning, but as time went on they started to accept and internalize their roles. Two prisoners had to be removed early due to extreme emotional distress, and a new one was introduced. As per instruction by Zimbardo, he staged a hunger strike against the guards for mistreatment. He was confined to "The Hole" and when the prisoners were offered a bargain—giving up their blankets in exchange for his freedom—all but one refused, as they saw him as a troublemaker and wanted to remain obedient.

Everyone involved began to see it as a reality rather than just an experiment. They fell into their roles and acted as such. Even the warden, Zimbardo, began to act more like a superintendent than a psychologist. A wake-up call came when graduate student Christina Maslach was introduced to conduct interviews and objected to the appalling conditions, questioning the morality of the experiment. After her visit, Zimbardo decided to shut down the intended 2-week ordeal after only 6 days.

Abu Ghraib torture

This experiment was conducted during the 1960s and 70s, a time when student protests and rebellions against oppressive governments and authorities were very common. Given this setting, I think it's quite surprising how little the prisoners acted against their mistreatment. This experiment is also commonly compared with the scandal of Abu Ghraib, where American soldiers grossly abused prisoners in an absence of strict policies.

So, what do you think? Do you think we are apt to play into our ascribed or achieved roles regardless of moral standards (consider the Milgram Study)? Do you think power in the absence of regulation brings out the worst in human nature?

Bonus:
A documentary about the Stanford Prison experiment:

Bonus #2:

The official website of the experiment, run by Philip Zimbardo: http://www.prisonexp.org/

Feral Children (Mowgli Syndrome)

2011-08-03T05:08:00.006-04:00

Creepy, right?! (This isn't a real child btw-it's from King Kong)

We've all heard the urban legend of the boy raised by wolves, and the Disney movie The Jungle Book; these are feral children. A feral child is one who has lived most or all of their developmental years in isolation, devoid of proper care or human contact. Some have been lost or abandoned by their parents, while some extreme cases of child abuse leave a child confined to a room or cage; both situations yield similar results. Children who do not receive nurturant care during formative years often do not survive (into which I will delve deeper in a later post), but there are over 100 known cases of feral children. In this post I will mostly focus on children raised in the wild, and will discuss confinement/abuse/distant parenting in the future.

Unless abandoned at an older age, most feral children lack any social skill, cannot understand or learn to speak language, are disinterested in human activity, will not wear clothes, do not walk upright and may even have physical deformations, and generally are so developmentally stunted that reintegration into society is nearly impossible. Most die or escape shortly after rescue or live the remainder of their lives in a mental health facility. Here are a few well-documented cases.

Dina Sanichar via whatsthatpicture

Dina Sanichar, or 'The Indian Wolf Boy', lived among wolves until he was 6 years old, when hunters saw him following a mother wolf into her den. They rescued the boy and at the time, he truly acted like a wild animal. He continually ripped off his clothes, ran on all fours, and ate (only raw meat) off the ground. He was eventually weaned to cooked meat but never learned to speak. He did, however, become addicted to tobacco. He died in 1895, at the age of 34.

Syrian Gazelle Boy

This 10 year old boy was discovered in 1960 by an anthropologist living among a herd of gazelles. He usually galloped and walked on all fours, only occasionally rising to stand, indicating that he had been abandoned shortly after learning to stand, at around 7-8 months of age. He ate mostly desert roots and other plants, although sometimes fed on lizards and worms when plant life was scarce. His face muscles twitched in response to the slightest noise, much like his gazelle brethren. In 1966, several attempts to capture him were unsuccessful and he was never rescued.

Rochom P’ngieng - Cambodian Jungle Girl

In this particularly interesting story, Rochom was lost at age 8 while herding buffalo with her sister in a Cambodian jungle. She remained in the jungle for the next 19 years, until emerging into a village not far from her original home in 2007. Her father immediately recognized her when the story of her discovery was broadcast on the news, and she was reunited with her parents.

Upon her recovery, she could only say three words: 'mother', 'father', and 'stomachache', and apart from those did not speak any comprehensible language. When she was thirsty or hungry, she only pointed at her mouth and when walking, preferred to crawl. Even though she was watched diligently by her parents after several escape attempts, she fled back into the jungle in May of 2010 and has not been found.

I think these cases are truly extraordinary and show how much impact proper care and socialization has on our development. As shown in the Bobo Doll Test, children will imitate the models around them, apparently regardless of species. Even though she was raised in a normal environment until age 8, almost two decades in the jungle completely broke down Rochom P'ngieng's social developments. She changed from a human merely surviving among animals to an animal herself.

Although, as a prelude to my future post I must highlight that children who are not exposed to nurturant care during critical periods rarely develop properly and some simply do not survive. These feral children are a marvel, not a model.

Bonus:
Oxana Mayala, the Ukranian dog girl, was not exactly feral nor confined, but spent ages 3-8 living in a dog kennel outside her house. She only knew how to say 'yes' and 'no' when she was rescued in 1991, and barked like a dog, ran on all fours, and sniffed her food before eating. Now, at the age of 27, she lives in a center for the mentally handicapped.

Buddhist Economics

2011-07-23T17:57:00.008-04:00

'Buddhist Economics' is an essay written by economist E. F. Schumacher, originally published in 1966, then later in his 1973, Small is Beautiful. According to the Hungarian academic Laszlo Zsolnai, "Buddhist economics is centered on want negation and purification of the human character. It challenges the basic principles of Western economics, (i) profit-maximization, (ii) cultivating desires, (iii) introducing markets, (iv) instrumental use of the world, and (v) self-interest based ethics. Buddhist economics proposes alternative principles such as (I) minimize suffering, (II) simplifying desires, (III) non-violence, (IV) genuine care, and (V) generosity."

I'd like to focus on the main point of the first 2 principles, minimize suffering and simplifying desires, as these were the two that hit me the hardest when reading the work.

His essay was partly inspired by Buddhism's four noble truths, which are as follows: 1. all life is suffering, 2. the origin of suffering is desire, 3. cessation of desire leads to the cessation of suffering, and 4. the eightfold path – the way to cease or minimize desires. I think this is especially relevant in modern, capitalist society, where greed runs rampant, and we seem to live in a world dictated by consumerism and the idea of a sense of self-worth based on possessions and wealth.

In his essay, Schumacher described the theories on consumption. According to Buddhists, “it is not wealth that stands in the way of liberation but the attachment to wealth; not the enjoyment of pleasurable things but the craving for them.” Buddhist economics are based around simplicity and non-violence. Modern economists measure the “standard of living” by how much is consumed. A man who consumes more is seen as “better off” than one who consumes less. Buddhist economists seek to obtain a maximum about of well-being with a minimum amount of consumption.

This is what spoke to me the most; excessive consumption is not only harmful but it is also stressful. Our mindset of ‘whoever dies with the most toys wins’ and constantly needing to spend our money to collect truly worthless items is detrimental to both us and nature. I believe Tyler Durden said it best in the movie Fight Club with the quote “the things you own end up owning you.” We as a people view our self-worth through items. Someone with a large house, luxury cars, and countless other toys is seen as better or more important than someone who lives in an apartment and rides their bicycle everywhere; we’ve got it all backwards.

We have transformed into a society controlled by greed; our main motivator in doing anything is profit. We all share this common dream of somehow striking it rich and living “the good life”. This mindset causes man to hurt and exploit each other in pursuit of personal gain- profit before people. This inevitably leads to unrest in the individuals who are being exploited and cannot reach our society’s standard of “success”. Our borderline neurotic obsession with obtaining wealth and material items is not only destroying our planet but our society as a whole.

For those of us who do not make 6 figure incomes and can't afford to conspicuously consume, we are left with desire, cravings, and obsession. We become wrapped up in this false ideal of what "the good life" is or should be and the "American dream". We think that's is where happiness lies..we create these false gods of money, cars, clothes, women, jewelry, etc. This is not happiness, this is suffering. It is only when you escape this, when you no longer chase after material things, that you can be happy. The cessation of suffering lies within the cessation of desire.

What do you think? Do you agree or disagree? Do you believe consumerism is healthy or necessary, or are you as sick of this rat race as I am?

Bonus:
E.F. Schumacher's original essay can be viewed online or downloaded as a PDF in multiple languages at http://www.schumachersociety.org/buddhist_economics.html

Stockholm Syndrome

2011-07-20T21:28:00.004-04:00

Hostages during the Kreditbanken robbery in Stockholm, Sweden

Stockholm Syndrome is the psychological phenomenon where hostages or abductees begin to develop positive feelings towards their captor, regardless of any present danger. They are loyal to them and may even protect them, as seen in several cases. There are many theories as to why this develops, with two of the main reasons being either the captor showing any degree of kindness leads the captive to develop feelings of gratitude (although captives may also interpret a lack of abuse for kindness as well) or the hostage sees the captor as giving life by not taking life-they become a kind of pseudo-caregiver, similar to an infant with a parent.

Swedish authorities watching over the hostage situation in Stockholm

This syndrome is named for the events following the robbery of Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm, Sweden. The robbers held 4 bank employees hostage from August 23-28, 1973. At the end of their 6 day ordeal, they sided with the captors and actively refused rescue. Later, they even raised money for the robbers' legal defense and it is rumored that one hostage even became engaged to one of the captors.

There are several other well-documented cases of Stockholm Syndrome, such as Patty Hearst, a millionaire heiress who was kidnapped in 1974 by the Symbionese Liberation Army. After being held captive for 2 months, she took part in a bank robbery.

The 1974 SLA bank robbery

Patty Hearst

A more recent case, from 2009, is that of Jaycee Dugard. She was kidnapped by Phillip and Nancy Garrido at age 11, at a bus stop in 1991. She was kept prisoner at their home for 18 years, and fathered 2 children by Phillip. She was interviewed by police regarding separate incidents during this time, and even when alone with investigators never mentioned her captivity. She used the alias 'Alyssa' and told police that she was a battered wife who had run away from her husband, and that Garrido was a great person.

Jaycee Dugard at the time of her rescue (left) and her capture (right)

So, what do you think? Do you think this is a legitimate disorder that can/does happen in kidnapping cases? Do you know of any other cases?

Bonus:

There is an inverse of Stockholm Syndrome, called Lima Syndrome, where captors begin to have compassion for their victims and sympathize with their needs. It was named after an abduction at the Japanese Embassy in Lima, Peru in 1996, where hundreds of hostages were taken from a party, but within hours many of them were set free when the abductors began to feel sorry for them.

The Bobo Doll Experiment

2011-07-15T19:07:00.003-04:00

Nature vs nurture is a well-known debate regarding personality. Are we born with genetically predetermined traits or do we develop them based on socialization? Alburt Bandura, a psychologist, believed we developed based on experiences and role models, and in 1961 performed his famous experiment on a group of children to see how they acted towards a doll based on the actions of an adult role model.

Bandura selected 72 children, 36 boys and 36 girls, ranging from 3-6 years of age from Stanford Nursery School. He split them up into 3 groups of 24. These groups were carefully sorted as to have an even mixture of the children's already existing personality types.

The first group, which I'll just call the aggression group, was exposed to an aggressive adult model. Half of this group was exposed to a model of the same sex, and the other half was exposed to one of the opposite sex. The second group, which I'll call the passive group, was exposed to a non-aggressive adult model. Again, half of this group was exposed to a model of the same sex, and the other half was exposed to one of the opposite sex. The third group, called the control group, was not exposed to any adult model.

In the first part of the experiment, a child and the model were taken into a playroom. The child was seated in a corner with many appealing toys, such as stickers and stamps. The adult sat in another corner with a toy set, a mallet, and the inflatable Bobo doll. The child was told that the toys in the adult corner were only for the adult to play with and that he/she was not permitted to use them.

In the aggression group, the adult would start to verbally and physically attack the doll for 10 minutes. They would yell at it, hit/kick it, and beat it with the mallet. After time was up, the experimenter would come in the room to dismiss the adult and take the child to another room. In the passive group, the adult simply played with the toy set calmly for the entire 10 minutes. In the control group, the child played in the room by themselves.

In the second part of the experiment, the child was brought into another room with more interesting toys, such as trucks and dolls. After 2 minutes, the experimenter tells the child that he/she is no longer allowed to play with the toys, that they were reserved for other children. This was done to cause frustration. The child was then taken into another playroom, filled with both non-aggressive toys (dolls, trucks, tops, stickers) and aggressive toys (the Bobo doll and the mallet). The child was observed for 20 minutes through a one-way mirror.

They were measured on 4 aspects of play:
1. Physical aggression - punching/kicking/sitting on the doll, hitting it with a mallet, or throwing it across the room
2. Verbal aggression - whether it was general abuse or an imitation of the role model
3. Amount of times the mallet was used to display other forms of aggression besides hitting the doll
4. Any behavior that was not directly imitative of the role model

Results:
As Bandura expected, the children exposed to the aggressive model were more likely to exhibit both physically and verbally aggressive behaviors towards the doll. Also, the experiment showed that children were more likely to imitate the same-sex model. The results also reflected that boys were nearly 3 times more likely to exhibit physically aggressive behavior than girls, while the level of verbally aggressive behaviors were about equal.

So, what do you think? Do you think role models and other external factors (Television, video games, music, peers) have an influence on your behaviors? Do you think an increase in violent media reflects an increase in violent crime and other behaviors?

Bonus:
Some original video footage of the experiment, with commentary by Albert Bandura

The Effects of Advertising on Self-Perception, Part 2

2011-07-05T22:20:00.009-04:00

While I'm on the topic of the relationship between self-perception and advertising, let's move away from minorities and move onto a more commonly explored correlation - women. It's pretty well known these days that the skin & bones models on the runway are directly related to many instances of eating disorders in young girls.

This too often leads to...


^young girls feeling this

It's not always so black and white, however. Advertising is a little more subtle. Like I said before, they perform an all out visual assault using images of "ideal" men, women, and families. Did you know the average American is exposed to more than 3000 advertisements per day? Most people claim they don't take ads seriously or that they ignore them/tune them out. I call BS..advertisers know you aren't going to sit there and analyze their ad and that you probably will try to ignore it. That's why they use imagery and psychological tactics that speak to your subconscious. You may not realize it, but trust me, they affect you.

Every ad we see has been digitally altered in some way. Usually, the model is retouched to eliminate any flaws and create an image of 'perfection'. This only continues to support this created ideal that other advertisers follow in the future and these images start to penetrate our subconscious.

Anne Taylor model, before photoshop

After photoshop: waist and hips noticeably slimmed, complexion smoothed

Britney Spears herself released these before & after photos, showing how she had been digitally altered for a Candies ad.

Julia Robert's complexion was obviously retouched. Nobody looks like this!

The barrage of these images creates insecurities within the viewers. A large reason these companies want to create insecurities is so that you won't feel good about yourself and you will buy their product to fill that created need.

You need a fuller bust - buy this bra.

Photoshop took away Courtney Cox's wrinkles - buy this cream to take away yours

Also, guys, I'm not saying this is limited to women because believe me, it isn't. Why do you think men flock to "male enhancement" and hair restoration products? It's not because women think you're unattractive..it's because advertising tells you women think you're unattractive and the only way women will find you desirable is if you have a full head of hair, six pack abs, or a large penis.

Well, sex sells..

So, what do you think? Do think advertising plays a role in how we see ourselves and others?

Bonus: The video below shows a few excerpts from one of cultural critic Dr. Jean Kilbourne's films, Killing Us Softly. She highlights the connection between consumerism and consciousness, and I'd highly recommend her films/books for further research on this subject.

Bonus #2: The iconic Marilyn Monroe, a size 12.

The Effects of Advertising on Self-Perception

2011-06-26T09:32:00.003-04:00

I'm picking up where I left off with the last post about the Doll Test and self-perception. We saw how it affected black youth in the 40s, but how are youth and adults affected now? What is affecting them? Why, despite strong efforts by both caretakers and communities to instill cultural pride and acceptance, are minorities so destined for subconscious self-hatred?

Baseball player Sammy Sosa, before & after skin bleaching

As seen from the last post, hatred and discrimination play a large role in a negative self-perception. In modern times, however, it's not as direct. Yes, there are many social stigmas against minorities, but in popular culture and young America, they are declining. Where, then, is this coming from? Honestly, there are quite a few factors but in my opinion, the biggest culprit to universal self-hatred/self-consciousness is advertising.

We are constantly fed these images of perfection. beauty, happiness..things we should strive for (or buy a product to achieve). When we can't live up to these created standards, insecurities manifest themselves in our sub-conscious. Some minorities have even resorted to bleaching their skin using creams or medical procedures, seen in the photos of Sammy Sosa at the top of this post and Beyonce (below).

Beyonce in 2006 (left) and 2011 (right).

Even worse:

Beyonce - how she really looked (left), and after photoshop (right)

In the above Loreal ad, Beyonce was photoshopped or "white washed" to give her skin tone, hair color, hair texture, and facial structure a more 'Caucasian' appearance. What kind of message is this sending to our youth? Black isn't beautiful and white is what's right? Why can't we be accepting of all cultures?

Do you think advertising plays a role in how we see ourselves? Let me know in the comments!

Bonus: While I've mainly focused on African-Americans, it doesn't just affect them. It affects all races, seen here:

The Doll Test

2011-06-22T21:15:00.011-04:00

This post is the first of a series of posts I plan on churning out to cover the multi-faceted topic of self-perception, internalization, societal views/stigmas, and outward influences . This one is more of an introduction, just to get the ball rolling.

The landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas is one of the most famous in American History. The rulings from this 3 year long case laid the groundwork for the desegregation of public schools. In the 1940s, psychologists Dr. Kenneth Clark and Mamie Clark conducted an experiment that became a strong part of Brown's argument for integration.

In their experiment, they placed 4 plastic baby dolls on a table, completely identical except for skin color (They were white, light-toned, medium-toned, and dark). They individually asked the children a series of questions regarding personal preference and racial perceptions. The children were asked these questions, in this order:

“Show me the doll that you like best or that you’d like to play with,”
“Show me the doll that is the ‘nice’ doll,”
“Show me the doll that looks ‘bad’,”
“Give me the doll that looks like a white child,”
“Give me the doll that looks like a colored child,”
“Give me the doll that looks like a Negro child,”
“Give me the doll that looks like you.”

The children readily identified the race of the dolls and which doll looked like them, but when asked which dolls they wanted to play with, most chose the white doll. When asked which doll was nice, they also chose the white doll. When asked which doll was bad, they usually chose the black doll.

This experiment brought to light the internalization of the racism and discrimination against African-Americans. The segregation, hatred, and prejudice they faced caused them to develop a subconscious self-hatred and sense of inferiority.

This concept can be applied to any group of people facing discrimination though..hispanics, homosexuals, women, middle eastern individuals, even a single person being bullied. Our actions have serious consequences that go far beyond what we can see. Hateful speech and behaviors towards a person or group of people because we deem them inferior or simply because we find it funny or it makes us feel better about ourselves is absolutely abhorrent and unnecessary.

What do you think about this subject and/or this test? Have you ever been discriminated against? How did it make you feel? Let me know your thoughts/opinions in the comments!

Bonus: In 2005, over 65 years later, high school student Kiri Davis recreated the famous Doll Test. Take a look at how we as a society have progressed since 1940:

Musing #1: The Counterstigma of Female Sex Offenders

2011-06-19T22:27:00.000-04:00

From now on I'm going to move away from the pictures/quotes/random crap I usually post and write something a little more serious. I'm a Psychology major and I'm minoring in Sociology, so my mind is constantly filled with questions regarding people, mental health, culture, society, etc. I'll probably research these topics more in depth later on and possibly do some writings on them, but for now, I'll just post them here. Please feel free to add your thoughts in the comments, I'd love to hear them and see your opinions/feedback.

The first discussion I'd like to open up is about female sex offenders. When you imagine a pedophile, what do you see? Usually, it's someone like this:


Come on down to Uncle Touchie's naked puzzle basement!

But what happens when it's someone like this?


Hot for Teacher

Debra Lafave, a middle school teacher who was 25 at the time, had a long-term sexual relationship with one of her students, who was 14. Why is this situation so different? How would we react if Debra was a Dennis?

Let me backtrack for a minute. Recently, my mother, sister and I were browsing the local sex offender registry. We winced and scoffed in disgust at every male we saw, but when a lone female appeared, we instantly tried to rationalize her crime. We assumed she was a teacher with an older student, or an innocent woman caught in an unfortunate situation. Why do we as a society tend to downplay female sex offenders yet condemn their male counterparts?

I think part of the reason is our societal view of women as nurturant and non-violent. We see them as incapable of these harmful behaviors. According to the Center for Sex Offender Management, "research revealed that police officers reacted with disbelief to allegations involving women, minimized the seriousness of the reports, viewed the female suspects as less dangerous and harmful, and were prone toward labeling the cases as 'unfounded'."

I'm sure almost every male out there has fantasized about their teacher/babysitter/etc at one time or another and it's possible that some victims did not object to the trysts, but the fact remains that these women are criminals and despite what our society may think, sexual offenses can be just as harmful to a young boy as a young girl.


Cougar or pedophile?

So..what do you think? How do you feel about female sex offenders?

Beauty Amidst the Vancouver Riot

2011-06-17T17:43:00.004-04:00


The now viral photograph of Scott Jones & Alex Thomas, taken Wednesday night. Rich Lam/Getty Images

Shortly after the Boston Bruins beat the Vancouver Canucks in the Stanley Cup Finals, riots erupted in Vancouver. Rioters shattered windows, flipped cars, burned storefronts and cars, looted shops, etc., etc..normal riot stuff. A total of 139 people were injured.

Amidst all the photos and videos of the violence and destruction during the riot, this lone photograph of a couple's romantic embrace emerged. This picture has spread like wildfire since yesterday, practically begging the title "Make Love Not War".

Allegedly, the couple was stuck between riot police and rioters, and when the police charged forward, Thomas was struck by a riot shield. Jones came down to help her and comforted her with a kiss, caught by the photographer. Thankfully, the couple escaped virtually unscathed, except for Thomas who sustained a bruised leg.

Bonus: The man in the workout shorts has been seen in many videos urging rioters to stop destroying their city. In the video below, you can see him and another random vigilante delivering some street justice!

Pandora Radio now trading on NYSE

2011-06-15T18:18:00.004-04:00

As of today, internet radio sensation turned smartphone staple Pandora Radio is officially trading on Wall Street! For those unfamiliar with Pandora, it is a website/app that allows users to create a personalized radio station around their favorite artists. The service plays music by this artist and similar artists, which the user can vote 'thumbs up' or 'thumbs down'. [sidenote: I personally have this app for my Droid and I love it!]

Working against them, however, is their reported $6.8 million loss in the last quarter and SEO reports indicate they have been in the red for a few years. They operate mostly on advertising and paid subscription revenue with their biggest cost being music royalties.

Their future seems bright, however, with greater numbers of smartphone users downloading the application, bringing in more mobile advertising revenue. Pandora expects to raise over $200 million from the stock offering and is trading under the stock ticker 'P'. They have already raised their price from $7-9 a share to $10-12, meaning it is already in high demand. If you are an investor willing to take a chance on Pandora, it could pay handsomely.

College Protips: Writing & Composition

2011-06-13T18:48:00.003-04:00

As a student, I write ~~too many~~ a lot of essays/papers. If you're in school too, you're probably in the same boat. It sucks, but writing skills are very useful in the business world so unless you aspire to flip burgers for a living, it's important to learn how to write effectively and eloquently. Unfortunately, this doesn't come naturally for most of us and most teachers/educational institutions don't have the time or resources to teach you high-quality writing skills, only an overview. I've put together some tips on how to win at writing and composition and although it's written with college writing in mind, these tips can be applied anywhere (resumes, creative writing, blogging, business proposals, grant writing, etc). Let me know what you think in the comments!

1. Don't wait until the last minute!!! I cannot stress this one enough. We've all been there..putting off a paper until the day before it's due, then staying up all night cursing our procrastination while scrambling to throw together a rushed, sub-par rambling with as many long citations as possible. Seriously, when will we ever learn?! A 10-20 page assignment is very intimidating and I will find any excuse to put it off; I will clean the bathroom, reorganize my iTunes, do yard work..whatever menial task I can find to avoid it.

Usually, a teacher will give you a few weeks to complete a paper, so spread it out! Doing a little bit each day will make it a hell of a lot easier, and give you ample time to revise it and make sure it's perfect.

2. Follow the directions! This one should be obvious, but I've seen many of my classmates get burned because they did not follow the instructor's guidelines for the paper. If the teacher wants 5-7 pages, 12 pt. font, Times New Roman, 1 inch margins, double spaced, whatever the hell..do it!! They will not hesitate to dock points from your dumb ass which could be the difference between an A and a B. Compare your paper with the guidelines before submitting to confirm.

3. Plan out your paper! One does not simply walk into Mordor! A well-written paper is preceded by in-depth research, an outline, and a rough draft. Know your enemy(research), develop a strategy(outline) and do a dry run(rough draft) before you attack!

4. Use reputable sources! Wikipedia entries, while quite informative and usually well-researched, can not be used as a source. They are user-submitted and edited, meaning any 12 year old troll can put false information on an entry. Citing Wikipedia will instantly discredit your work and should only be used to gain introductory insight on your topic and to find reliable sources in the 'External Links'.

Some examples of reputable sources include encyclopedias, scholarly articles and journals, dissertations, and lectures. Visit your local/university library to talk to a librarian or search the library catalog.

5. Don't plagiarize! There are many programs for teachers to easily identify plagiarizing and most will automatically give you a 0 for the assignment and report the incident to the college. Plagiarizing is more than just copying another work word-for-word, you need to credit ALL sources-quoted or paraphrased.

Also, most teachers will direct you to use a certain citation style such as MLA, APA, Chicago, Turbian, etc. Familiarize yourself with this style before writing and add the citations as you go; don't wait until the end or you may forget which source you cited or if you even cited at all. Universities don't mess around with plagiarizing, so seriously, do it right.

6. PROOFREAD!!! This is absolutely vital..you do not want to lose points because you put a comma in the wrong place or made a typo. After you finish your paper, leave it alone for a day or so and then come back and reread it aloud. This will highlight any glaring errors in grammar, spelling, or sentence structure.

Big Chang's Bargain Barn

2011-06-09T02:42:00.001-04:00

I just found this email in my inbox and it was too hilarious not to post on here.

In case you can't see the picture, here's the message text:

FREE HEROIN SHIPPING!

1. Heroin, in liquid and crystal form.
2. Rocket fuel and Tomohawk rockets (serious enquiries only).
4. New shipment of cocaine has arrived, buy 9 grams and get 10th for free.

Everebody welcome, but not US citizens, sorry.

ATTENTION. Clearance offer. Buy 30 grams of heroin, get 5 free.

Please contact: jnchang@uark.edu

PHONE 0097(0)9658980
FAX 0097(0)9635241

Afghanistan

Who the hell solicits drug sales via random emails? Are you really that desperate?

Who is this 'hartwell mauricio' character?

Rocket fuel?! "Tomohawk" rockets?! What is this I don't even??? At least he has a variety..

This is probably the funniest spam email I've ever received. Usually it's 'you've won the British lottery!' or 'King X in Y has left a massive fortune and you are a beneficiary!' I read somewhere that PayPal has blocked the entire country of Nigeria because of these scams. Still..what the hell??

Alternatively, if this is your scene, you better hop on this!! 9 grams of cocaine and get the 10th free?! 30 grams of heroin, get 5 free?! SHIT guys you can't beat that with a stick!

Has anyone else gotten crazy emails like this? Share em if ya got em!

New layout, etc..

2011-06-05T21:01:00.000-04:00

I just loaded a new blog layout, thanks to BTemplates. I think it's absolutely gorgeous! I think I want to spruce my blog up a little more too..maybe add a twitter feed, some network sites..what do you guys think of all this? Give me some tips in the comments :)

Little Kid Letters

2011-05-23T22:16:00.004-04:00

These are some letters/to-do lists from little children. I think they're awesome.


This is my personal favorite


This kid knows what's up

I hung out with Steve once. Changed. My. Life.

Ode to Obama

2011-05-20T08:26:00.004-04:00

A lot of people hate Barack, but I love the shit outta him. No matter how you feel, you can't deny the amazingness of these pictures.

My kinda president.


Obama as a wee-one!

My president is a Jedi - your argument is invalid.

This isn't even shopped.

Circa 1980

Pac Mac!

Barack Obama: President of Awesome

I can't see anything wrong with a guy who stops to dap up little white kids.

*drool*

Office Binge!

2011-05-19T01:47:00.003-04:00

One of my favorite TV shows is The Office, and I've found a lot of pictures lately via Tumblr. If you like The Office, you'll probably like these little gems:

gif


This is probably my favorite line in the entire series

gif

I've got my finger in a lot of pies

2011-05-13T16:39:00.003-04:00