Psychology Articles

Definitional traps and word games in debate; are they just, should they be used in negotiation? Lawyers often debate definitions, and they debate the definition of a law. They do this in the best interests of their clients who pay them money, if that definition doesn’t suit them, they look for case law which does, and then they look at evenly applied enforcement to see if that fits or if there are problems there which they can use in their argument, that is if they can’t win a victory on the other points.

That’s all well and good, because all is fair in love, war, and apparently law.

But this doesn’t necessarily make it correct or right to use word games when debating online, by e-mail, or even with friends at a coffee shop. Not long ago, I was reading the blog of an acquaintance who explained how he used the word games to debate his points of view, in a competitive way against his opponent’s points of view on things such as religion, politics, homosexuality, immigration, asylum law, and other topics that interested him.

His strategy was very pretty cut and dry. What he would do is find ambiguity in the statements made by his opponent, and then he would make his opponent define the words they were using, and as the conversation, dialogue, discussion, and debate progressed, he would simply hold them to those definitions. Interestingly enough, not everyone has complete command of the English language, so often they choose words falsely or perhaps incorrectly for lack of finding a relevant term to use in its place at that particular moment, we all do this I suppose.

For this individual I would ask the following questions, and make a couple comments;

Have you found that as per game theory the very folks that may be worth discussing such topics with may chose to disengage, as you debate using “word games” because it is entirely possible to use seventh grade debating tactics like this, and those who have previously played see the trap in advance of the end of the tic-tac-toe simulation.

Those who through perhaps ego, choose to continue the debate, have only three potential outcomes with the word game strategy – lose or draw, or they can quit and turn over that chess board. In which case their better part of valor (leaving the battlespace or quitting the game in an act of discretion), also serves the “word gamer strategist” in believing they’ve won, when in reality they’ve failed to change anyone’s mind or bring them into the dialogue.

Why, because a person who feels disrespected of course wants revenge, and will seek such, perhaps through angry discourse or hateful verbal attacks. I’ve found that you cannot win an argument or debate, and when you think you have you should remember “a person against their will is of the same opinion still.” Yet, in that case, why waste energy on folks who are not going to listen, and why play word games with those who might? Please consider all this.

Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank. Lance Winslow believes it’s hard to write 20,000 articles; http://www.bloggingcontent.net/

Note: All of Lance Winslow’s articles are written by him, not by Automated Software, any Computer Program, or Artificially Intelligent Software. None of his articles are outsourced, PLR Content or written by ghost writers.

PsyD degree encompasses four-five years of study and then an internship, resulting in a certification as a doctor in Psychology. One can pursue a degree either as a clinical degree, practical and applied, or a research one. You will find large differences between the two fields of specialization.

You can also find big differences between academic and professional programs, concerning both the coursework and the necessary expenses. Still, a professional school might not be the top option in certain areas of specialization. Considering this, you can find several pros and cons regarding the most appropriate option for a PsyD degree study and people who are interested in the topic should always follow their personal preferences and argumentation so they can have the most suitable solution.

Preferably after getting an MS degree, you can apply for a PsyD degree program by enrolling in a college or university, or in a professional school. It is not mandatory. You can also decide to take your PsyD degree without a MS one, although several people might find this a longer and wasteful process. Yet, if you think you may be able to obtain your PsyD degree sooner than average, not having previously earned an MS should not be a problem.

There are programs that allow you to skip some classes and shorten your PsyD degree study time, even though the process is not always easy and you should submit a syllabi waiver in due time. Not all PsyD programs will accept shorter studies, yet if you manage to finish your syllabi on time, in the first year or two you should be able to skip up to four classes each semester. Another solution could be to transfer few modules from MS, while the type of program you’ve chosen may be major for the information you can transfer, so you must also check the order of the classes in your program.

Usually, universities and professional schools do not agree to transfer of this kind of classes as long as you did not get to attend them. Mostly in the first year, a PsyD degree student may have limited alternatives regarding the course diversity. The students have to always attend the compulsory classes first. Most of the classes that might be skipped in various university programs were Stats I, Adult Psychology, Child Psychopathology and Research Methods. So if you ‘re aiming to do an MS and later enroll in a PsyD program, you can as well choose research-based MS programs that have a good history of getting people into doctoral programs. Furthermore, if you are thinking about shortening your study time in PsyD degree education, check your syllabi in time and submit your waiver as soon as possible, starting with the first years of study.

Adrian is an editor for http://www.psyddegree.com/,a website where you can find more info about a PsyD Degree.

How smart are you? I sometimes pose this cruel question to students at the outset of a workshop on intelligence and learning. Some students sense the tease, and I get my desired response through quizzical and hazy answers from students clearly not happen with my question! And nor should they be. It is a dumb question, and the wrong question. How smart are you assumes two things:

1) intelligence is one dimensional and we all are placed somewhere along it’s continuum

2) intelligence is fixed

This has significant implications for students, especially those who do not see themselves as being smart. Not only is their self esteem injured, but they will very often give up on the effort required to improve their ’smartness’.

Changing the sequence of words in this question to ‘How are you smart’ fixes the first problem. This question rightly assumes that we are all smart but in different ways. Howard Gardner is recognised as a key figure in liberating intelligence from its narrow dimensions to the multi dimensional, but the concept is hardly Copernican. Put simply, just because a person is good at something does not guarantee proficiency in another thing. As I see it, the main problem in school education is a kind of reversal of this, and we need to proclaim that just because a child is not good in certain areas – for example numeracy or literacy, does not warrant their intellect to be written off.

The triumvirate of maths, science and literacy is all pervasive in schools, commanding large tracts of time at the expense of other ways of knowing and learning. I can’t speak for all students of course, but having worked with students in many countries recently I have found in their interpretation of intelligence, a common denominator almost exclusively bound to written words and maths. The broader view of multiple intelligences is wonderfully empowering for students. I take school groups through the Gardner model of 8 MI asking students to identify the areas they are strong in. Kids love this. They observe in their class a diversity of human capacity that surrounds them, and they see that all students can identify strengths in at least some areas. Interestingly -and of some concern is that of the eight MI, less hands are rising for number smart and word smart than for almost all other MI. Given the time allocation to these departments, why is this so? Maybe this is connected to a fixed view of intelligence within these subjects, or maybe it has to do with a compartmentalization and isolation of the subject from context. Stanford University professor and psychologist Dr. Carol Dweck is convinced that learning effort is seen as fruitless by students when views of intelligence are fixed. This fascinating area of educational psychology requires further expansion in another article (read her book ‘The Mindset’). In a nutshell fixed intelligence implies a deterministic view of the world whilst movable intelligence embraces challenge, effort as the pathway to mastery, persistence, and in general gives students a greater sense of free will.

Which of Gardner’s eight MI is the most important intelligence? This seemingly ‘wrong’ question can precipitate a fascinating exploration of the value in all intelligences. As we move from one MI to another, students speak up on the merits of each until a conclusion is reached: they are all equally important. This has the makings of a wonderful debate. Yes, numeracy, literacy and science are most definitely important but not to the exclusion of the arts, physical education, emotional and naturalist intelligence. So at this point we embrace two essential learnings:

1) We are all smart, but in different ways

2) All types of knowing are important and there is no consensus as to what is the most important. Fully human diversity embraces all MI.

This self knowledge about our strengths and weaknesses is valuable, but needs to be applied. What intelligence area do you resonate with and are really good at?

Do you want to be an expert?

What do we need to do to get really good at something?

How can you support your quest to advance in your favoured intelligence?

We talk about finding groups of like minded people, mentors, reading books, watching documentaries and so on; that learning is most successful when driven by the self, and internalised. We also discuss deep learning skills like metacognition, repetition, slow learning, chunking and the 10 000 hour rule. Intrinsic motivation via Csiksentmihalyi’s Flow model is referred to. What about the weaker learning areas we need to strengthen? Such a question invites students to reflect on what they recognize a need to improve in. This is where a movable against fixed view of intelligence is vital. “I’m just not good at maths” is deterministic and belies the role of effort. Indeed we are born with or without certain natural dispositions and inclinations, but who is to say that over a period of sustained effort we cannot fulfill our potential and improve our capacities? Students must believe in improvement through effort. Further essential learnings:

3) The nature of expertise begins with a degree of genetic disposition, passion and opportunity, but cross-discipline studies in expertise have found the most significant factor is sustained effort over a period of time.

4) We are not destined to be ‘poor’ at something forever. We can always improve on our acuity, with effort.

5) We should further develop our strengths in terms of increasing complexity, but also shore-up our weaknesses. Our lives will be all the richer if we fully embrace the physical, social, emotional, artistic and academic opportunities given to us.

The intelligence paradox is that successful learning often involves a symbiotic relationship between learning domains. For example, I think better after I do physical exercise, or in the case of Einstein, after I play the violin. It is ironic that the compartmentalization and focus of learning areas has apparently led to lower learning outcomes, as evident in some western education systems. This brings us to the wonderful world of trans-disciplinary learning, making connections and more fully using our brain – a topic for another day.

Michael Griffin is available for student workshops and staff professional development, conference presentations and keynote addresses.

Michael Griffin is an internationally recognized educator, author and pianist. In Australia he was awarded the Education and Arts Ministers’ Prize in 2006 and nominated for a National Teaching Excellence award in 2005. Michael won many significant national and state prizes as a choral and jazz ensemble conductor -including Australia’s premier choral prize, before moving to Dubai with his wife, Rae, where they presently reside. As an international conference presenter, clinician and speaker Michael is in high demand working in up to 20 countries in 2010, and his books on music and learning continue to sell in several countries. Additionally, as a writer he has had a number of professional articles published in specialist magazines in Australia, the UK and the Middle East, including for peak music education body ISME and Rheingold, UK. Trained as a classical pianist, Michael is known for stylistic versatility and recent performances include a residency at Dubai’s iconic Burj al Arab. Michael is most passionate about engaging young people in the wonders of learning.

Buddhists have he named for the quality of inquisitiveness that we associate with very young children and kittens: they call it child-mind.

It is a state of consciousness that is highly sought after by long-term practitioners of the meditative arts. It is a state of mind that represents curiosity, inquisitiveness and a natural desire for knowledge. The mind in the state can be thought of as “sticky”. Ideas and concepts answer the sticky mind and stay there for us to reflect upon and put together in interesting ways.

There is a lot of concern in the literature, especially those dealing with high school and undergraduate college curriculum about how to motivate students to become more interested in the lessons of hand.

This is a more general problem however with any topic which is not of immediate interest to the student.

A lot of student disinterest in the class I believe, however, can be attributed to the industrial age approach to education, which treat students as replaceable parts and education is a series of FAQs and standardize concepts that need to be imprinted into the brain in order to create DOS file, obedient workers. Is it any wonder that children resist this kind of indoctrination, because it offends their sense of individuality, uniqueness and joy of life.

by the time our students have grown up to be adult learners, there is a vast literature that is required to address the issue of how to create the conditions in which they will be restocked of to learning. By young adulthood, we have managed to turn people from the naturally inquisitive learners of their youth into the all and defenses automatons who resist all opportunities to learn in the same way that they have learned to resist marketing and advertising of products that they sense they don’t really need.

As teachers, we have an obligation to appeal to their natural inquisitiveness by creating the conditions in which they can find once more their inmates desire to learn. We must appeal to that inner child and his or her natural curiosity bite making it clear that the lesson truly is concerned with something of value, that is worthy of being known on at some and not necessarily to serve the purposes of others.

We must remember ourselves as teachers how to connect to the joy of learning that syllabus as children. There’s always time for the student to figure out later how it may be applied or not in their life, but that is an effort that should be following the initial phase of learning for the sheer sake of learning.

Ken Long, Chief of Research, Tortoise Capital Management
finance: http://www.tortoisecapital.com
essays: http://kansasreflections.wordpress.com

Independent research, combining technical analysis and behavioral psychology.
30 day free trial of reports and live trader chatroom.
Training, education, mentoring and coaching for professional traders.

What makes one human being brutalize another human being under the guise or rule of law? Lord Acton in 1887 wrote a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton and said “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Is this part of the answer?

Those who have studies excessive use of force have identified 6 conditions that make an organization ripe for loss of discipline and control of employees.

1. Weak or absent leadership
2. Seeing others as less than human
3. Lack of discipline and training
4. Not having oversight by an outside entity. Secrecy.
5. Being exposed to brutality
6. Being part of a group with similar beliefs about the legitimacy of using violence in certain situations as a means to an end.

Let’s evaluate some well known situations.

Mei Lai Massacre.
March 16, 1968, in the time span of about 20 minutes, 347 to 504 South Vietnamese citizens were murdered by 60-70 US soldiers in the village of Mei Lai. The victims were mostly women, children and the elderly. They were beaten, raped, and tortured. Three soldiers tried to stop the massacre. About 25 people escaped by hiding under the bodies of the dead.

Charlie Company had suffered significant casualties since arriving in Vietnam. The company was sent into Mei Lai because it was thought to be an enemy stronghold. They were reportedly told by Captain Ernest Medina (accounts vary) to kill everyone, slaughter livestock, and burn down the village. At first there was a cover up of the incident, but a soldier, Richard Ridenour sent letters to the President, Congress, and other Washington officials. Twenty six soldiers were eventually charged. Only William Calley was convicted. He served three years on a life sentence. William was diminutive in stature and a college drop out when he entered the Army.

Weak leadership and lack of training were cited as contributors to these events, as well as the Army’s insistence on following orders. Additionally, it was said that many soldiers did not think of the Vietnamese as human. Isolation from the outside world can skew one’s view of what is right and wrong. Not until additional soldiers entered the village did the killing stop. Not until exposed to the outside world, was the atrociousness of the soldier’s acts realized. The larger world had not lost their moral compass. So, when the standards of the larger world were applied, what was done was seen as wrong.

Zimbardo Prison Experiment
In 1971 at Stanford University, Dr. Zimbardo began the, now infamous, prison experiment. He divided a group of students into prisoners and guards and set up a makeshift prison in the basement of one of the University buildings. Everyone knew that this was an experiment. The experiment was planned for two weeks, but was stopped after 6 days because the “guards” became too sadistic and the “prisoners” became too depressed. However, some guards did not participate in humiliating prisoners, but did not stop others. The students were caught in a time warp where they thought what they were doing was acceptable because there were no outside influences to say, “No, that is not OK.” Finally, another professor reported what was going on as unacceptable and the experiment was stopped.

Dr. Stanley Milgram’s Experiment in 1961.
Dr. Milgram wanted to know what kinds of people yielded to the pressure of the Nazi culture. In his experiment, researchers in lab coats at Yale University instructed participants to deliver increasingly painful electric shocks to other “participants” to “teach them through punishment.” Sixty-five percent of the participants continued to deliver what they thought was electric shocks for incorrect answers despite the screams from the “fake” participants. Replications of Dr. Milgram’s experiment have found that about 65% of ordinary people yield to the pressure of the authority figure even when it is contrary to their morals and 35% do not. Which group would you be in?

Abu Ghraib
In the San Francisco Chronicle, Saturday, May 8, 2004, Dr. Zimbardo analyzed the Abu Ghraib abuses and found that the prison environment was ripe for mistreatment to happen (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/05/08/MNGN76IG761.DTL). The prison had a weak leader, Brigadier General Janis Karpinski. The prison within the prison was a “secret place” that was not visited often by administrators. The prison was understaffed and undertrained and lacked basic services for staff. They were under the stress of fearing insurgent attacks constantly. They lacked discipline and standard operating procedures. The situation continued to worsen until a soldier pointed out the egregious nature of the activities within the prison. Zimbardo commented that what happened was inevitable. Prisons where the balance of power is so unequal are very likely to become abusive. In the New York Times, May 6, 2004, Craig Haney, a psychology professor at the University of California, stated that preventing problems like those found at Abu Ghraib requires discipline, training, and outside monitoring (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/06/international/middleeast/06PSYC.html?ex=1399262400&en=91f8144cdf7dd44a&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND).

Conclusion
There appear to be environmental and organizational, as well as individual contributors to excessive use of force in institutions or organizations. Further examination of these factors will teach us how to monitor organizations to prevent such things from happening in the future. The key features appear to be lack of training and discipline, weak leadership, and lack of outside oversight. It would also be important to look at the organizational characteristics of agencies where excessive use of force does not occur. It is an important area to study.

We’ve all experienced the shock of watching stories like these on TV, but have you ever wondered why some seemingly ordinary people commit violent crimes? Would you be amazed to know that many of them could have been predicted and prevented if someone had seen the warning signs and intervened before it was too late? Would you like to know how you can protect your children from becoming either the victims or perpetrators of a violent crime? Do you need some way to measure youth violence risk?

Dr. Kathryn Seifert is a psychotherapist with over 30 years experience in mental health, addictions, and criminal justice work. Dr. Seifert has authored the CARE 2 and a parent and professional version of “How Children Become Violent.” The parent version has an orange cover and a kindle book on Amazon. She speaks nationally on mental health related topics and youth violence. She is an expert witness in the areas of youth and adult violence and sexual offending. Get her free email newsletter at http://www.drkathyseifert.com
She has appeared on EBRU TV’s Bullying in America and will appear on the Discovery Channel ID Program, Wicked Attractions, soon.

Yielding is not seen always as weakness. It can represent the wisdom that tells us of Nature’s secret in survival, whether applied to the evidence of the bamboo and the flexible plants that allow the winds to give them strength in time, or to the human compliance that allows a superior result in situations and relationships, or the strong action of an army general in warfare.

In the cultivation of upright, healthy plants we observe the wisdom of a gardener who understands the need to balance strength and flexibility. In philosophizing, the clear example of the need for yielding for life preservation to avoid the brittleness that can break, is a popular one. We can learn a great deal from the natural world that demonstrates surrender of individual creatures to forces greater than themselves.

In application of this principle to human life however, it is much more complex as we struggle with the basic psychological exercise of discovering when is the time to assert ourselves and ideas as expression of our god-given free will and when our personal ego has to remain subdued, restrained or even suffer frustration should we be required to yield to something inferior.

We keep in mind the important directive to be true to ourselves and this helps to focus in deciding when and where yielding is not weakness. It is the acid test in many difficult choices we are called up on make. To yield to something that is in accordance with our ideals, beliefs and our own principles but offers a new and better result would perhaps demonstrate our maturity and willingness to take a path towards growth. When faced with a greater force, persuasion or intrusion not in accordance with our personal freedom, ideals and principles then could certainly be argued as weakness through betrayal of our true self. But it is not always that easy and so deserves some consideration.

It can be when we fall in love and our emotions participate in a situation that offers greater and more fulfilling experience and growth of the love principle, there are few who choose to resist the impulse to yield in willing surrender. Some people choose to make a habit of it until it presents a case of possible weakness as can occur when any habit dictates to us. But the example is offered only to show that the beautiful human emotion of love is also associated with choices, sacrifices and sometimes inner conflict.

A strong leader is never at a loss for followers who happily yield to surrender previous personal elements for a cause. If the cause is perceived as greater than one’s individual efforts, many find it easy to offer their energies. In fact many people yearn to meet such a leader who exemplifies their ideals and offers a practical path for their expression. In other words, to surrender to a greater person, cause or value has obvious virtue just as long as personal discrimination and personal freedom of choice are employed. The powers of persuasion are very strong.

History however, demonstrates how it is possible that group surrender of individuals can be destructive as witnesses in violent revolution and mass aggression that has been responsible for unimaginable and unforgivable deeds. These happenings remind us to be cautious.

The art of surrender is one that requires wisdom greater than most of us initially possess, but by practical action and choices life quickly teaches us. We find that to surrender to something greater may require sacrifice but the result will be a proven justification. We find that to surrender to something less than our intuition and nobler nature demands results in self recrimination and loss of self respect.

Then there is the factor of appropriate degree of importance of a situation that offers a choice between standing strong or demonstrating personal courage and giving in to save a person, situation or cause. This is left to each of us to decide, and every day we are faced with an echo of this basic exercise in measuring what is important and what is not within the framework of circumstances, and within the corridors of our own mind and heart.

Aromatherapy or the science of Osmics is proving immensely popular when applied in self help or in professional healing. It is a delightful way to employ natural perfumes to assist mood and mind states and is particularly helpful as an adjunct to relaxation techniques and stress relief. Sally Wilson is an expert in aromatics and author of one of the earliest publications on the subject, directing its use in incense and in healing and has utilized the subtle benefits in her naturopathic practice over many years. More details at associated sites.

http://www.essence-of-yoga.net
http://www.breathing-fragrance.com

Wikipedia describes psychology as an academic and applied discipline that involves the scientific study of human mental functions. A person who is practicing psychology is known as a psychologist. Its scope is related to the role of mental and emotional functions in individuals and groups in general, and it can also help explore the physiological and neurological processes going on in a person. Psychology science has been taken up as a profession by experts for over a century now, and in the past, various scholars have done their forms of studies to understand the human mind.

There are various branches of psychology science on which many books have been written. While the primary application of psychology is to study human behavior in various situations, it can also help suggest the abnormalities in a person’s reaction to a given situation. Additionally, an analysis of a person’s behavior pattern can help suggest new theories for psychology. A big section of psychology also refers to the study of the neurological processes going on in the mind of a person when he is subjected to certain situations. This helps doctors understand the chemical reactions going on inside the human body.

Various books have been written on the subject of psychology science. The basic question that you must answer when taking up psychology as a career is how you want to interact with people at different times. If you want to help people come out of difficult situations, you may consider taking up counseling as a career. You can read books on being an effective counselor, using psychotherapy and other techniques to treat your patient. You will find that, in such a case, you will be dealing with normal developmental issues and daily stresses. A counselor is now employed in various places, such as schools and universities, hospitals, businesses, and community health centers.

It is a well-known fact that psychology science can help you spend time with people who need help to go through difficult times. In case you intend to take up psychology as a degree, you should consider reading as many psychology books as possible. This will help you not only understand the importance of reading the human mind, but also see some easy to identify traits in the people you deal with. If you like reading psychology textbooks, you should also make it a point to note down what the prospective career opportunities are in that field. This will help you identify which line of work you want to choose in psychology. It will also enlighten you about the importance of social work. Social work helps interact with people who are dealing with difficult situations in life, and some such situation can be of particular interest to you and you may be able to suggest them a solution to the same.

In this respect, it is a good idea to conduct small interviews with people who, you know, need psychological help. Psychology science can help them find solutions to their problems. Books are, therefore, necessary to help people overcome their problems.

Browse through a range of used psychology science textbooks. Also know about the career options and opportunities in the field of psychology.

We all know about intelligence: the kind measured by IQ (and Mensa) tests. A measurement of verbal-linguistic and logical-mathematic skills, this appears on first consideration to be an accurate portrait of intellect. Howard Gardner, a psychologist at Harvard, theorized (and popularized) the concept of “multiple intelligences” during the past two decades, a theory which highlights types of intelligence beyond this measure: musical, kinetic, visual-spatial, and more. While critics suggest that some of these so-called “intelligences” are actually talents, Gardner counters with the proposal that if they are, so are the abilities one might have in the original concept of intelligence – that is, if we are musically talented (rather than having a high musical intellect), then we are also verbally or mathematically talented. The concepts are parallel.

Daniel Goleman, a psychologist at Rutgers and visiting professor at Harvard, developed two aspects of Gardner’s theory – intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligences – into what he refers to as emotional intelligence. His book by the same name, published in 1995, was a best-seller for nearly two years. His earliest work was in the field of meditation, and he directs a center dedicated to the study of meditation’s effects on emotional intelligence. Currently, he is working on a concept he calls, social intelligence.

Many scientists are now studying the concept of emotional intelligence, and it is applied to business, education, politics, and many other settings. Unlike the traditional IQ, which is more or less static throughout one’s life, emotional intelligence can be improved with training.

Emotional intelligence [EI] is both innate and learned. Often, the distinction is made between emotional intelligence, which a person has to some degree or another from birth, and emotional quotient [EQ], which is measurable and includes learned skills. Emotional intelligence is given many definitions, but one that I particularly like is: “the innate potential to feel, use, communicate, recognize, remember, describe, identify, learn from, manage, understand and explain emotions” [Steve Hein].

Synonyms for the concept of emotional intelligence might be: emotional sensitivity, emotional memory, emotional processing and problem-solving ability, or emotional learning ability.

There is a generally accepted, 4-branch model of emotional intelligence: emotional perception, (for example, identifying emotions in faces, music, stories), emotional facilitation of thought (such as, relating emotions to other mental sensations, and using emotion in reason and problem-solving), emotional understanding (solving emotional problems – knowing how various emotions are similar or opposite to one another, and what relations they convey), and emotional management (understanding the social implications of one’s emotions and having the ability to regulate them in oneself and in others).

A simpler and more direct version is this: (1) accurately identify emotions; (2) use emotions to help you think; (3) understand what causes emotions; and, (4) manage to stay open to these emotions in order to experience the wisdom of our feelings.

Our brains have three primary regions: the neocortex, by which all cognition occurs; the brain stem, the concern of which is primal, reflexive functions designed for survival (such as breathing and heartbeat); and, the limbic system. The latter, also called the “paleo-mammalian brain”, is what we know to be our emotional center. The brain developed in the primordial human, and develops in each fetus, from the brain stem upward, based on importance for survival; as the limbic system develops after the brain stem and before the neocortex, it may actually be more important to our survival than our conscious thought processes.

There’s a saying in biomedicine: “That to which we give attention grows.” The human species has emphasized the abilities of the neocortex for millenia, and the neocortex in present-day humans is vastly larger and more well-developed than that of our ancestors. However, the limbic system is under-developed, and the argument can be made that we would do well to place more emphasis upon this aspect of our intellect.

This is also culturally based: in Asia, for example, great emphasis is placed upon social harmony and, therefore, emotional intelligence. Connectedness is highly valued, and emotional resonance with one another the basis of society. In Korea, where I made my home for five years, this is called nunchi, “the subtle art of listening and gauging another’s mood” [Hilty, Streetwise in Seoul]. It is such a powerful phenomenon that Korean people feel their thoughts might be able to be read by one another, and they keep their emotions well in check. It’s also one of the cultural difficulties between Koreans and non-Asian foreigners who have no awareness of or experience with this idea.

In our brains, the amygdala is a part of the limbic system that responds quickly and dramatically to perceived threat. Designed to protect the human from harm in a world of constant physical stress, it is now somewhat obsolete in that, except for those in war zones for example, most of us are living in a “complex, symbolic reality with symbolic threats” [Goleman]. The amygdala communicates directly with the pre-frontal cortex [PFC], the “executive center” of the brain which scans all possible intellectual input for this “perceived threat” and then controls, through the left PFC in particular, the over-reaction that the amygdala would otherwise generate. Of course, many other parts of the brain also contribute to emotional intellect.

Scientists have also hypothesized and are studying the possibility of mirror neurons in humans, which are known to exist in primates; these neurons elicit a mirror image of what another organism is doing, feeling, or intending, to synchronize interaction. It seems that human brains interact as a social brain network, attuning and regulating themselves to the circuitry of one another.

The circuitry between the limbic system and the prefrontal cortex isn’t fully developed until one’s mid-20s, so when it comes to emotional regulation, we must teach – and be patient with – youth. All neural circuitry is malleable, able to continue to be altered and developed throughout a person’s life, a quality which is called neuroplasticity. There are many ways to develop our Emotional Quotient, from tools of self-awareness such as mindfulness to a variety of meditative practices which science has shown to strengthen the left prefrontal cortex. Self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and social skills are the four areas in which the development of EQ focuses.

It’s imperative for our own growth and development, as individuals and as societies, that we learn the wisdom of our emotions – necessary for decision-making and for creating a more benevolent and interconnected world.

How’s your emotional intelligence? Would you qualify for a “high EQ society”? For a free test of your own emotional intelligence, I recommend this site: http://www.queendom.com/tests/access_page/index.htm?idRegTest=1121.

Dr Anne Hilty is an health psychologist with a transpersonal orientation; she has a clinical practice in integrative psychotherapy which is additionally influenced by classical Chinese medicine, somatic psychology, and Asian shamanic traditions. Located in the Central district of Hong Kong, she can be contacted at: annehilty at gmail dot com.

What happens in our childhood for most of us is largely forgotten by the time we reach early middle age. We forget either because we just do, or because we screen it out. Fortunately, we can be encouraged professionally to recall much of it comparatively easily, if we wish to.

It is now better understood how children learn to pattern themselves mentally and emotionally from an early age. The way individual children achieve this varies widely. Many of them form patterns of behaviour and set up emotional defences to enable them to cope with life in their family.

The stimuli for this harmful process can be parental behaviour which can seem innocuous to outsiders. More than that, the dysfunction can be unintentional in the parent and can result from patterns they themselves formed in their own childhood.

It can involve the ways the parents handle feelings of affection between them or the lack of it. It can stem from the resolution, or the lack of it, of disputes within the family. Attitudes within a family to certain behaviours of other people can play a part. It can even stem from how all the members interacted together socially as a family group.

These are just some of the ways children can feel bound under the psychological pressure on them to create their own patterning processes. Clearly cases of severe physical mental and emotional child abuse set up the reactions in the child which can initiate more rigid patterning and defence strategies.

Despite the threat having gone when they leave home, all too often the affected child continues most often to carry the patterns and defences forward into their adult life. There, far from them withering, the patterns can be re-enforced and perpetuated sub-consciously, impacting for good or ill on the adult’s sense of personal well-being and spirituality. Worse, the adopted strategies can have adverse influence on future relationships with partners, siblings, children and friends.

These patterns can also be applied naively to deal with new problems despite their unsuitability as adult response mechanisms to deal even with the issue that spawned them..

However there is a strange feature often found in such a process of adult recall and analysis of their childhood. It occurs among adults who as children were brought up in merely dysfunctional families, or where they were severely abused physically, mentally or emotionally. In all such cases, very often those adults who suffered, reveal an understandable and marked reluctance to review their childhood experiences.

What is perhaps more extraordinary is what can happen once those adults are equipped with a more detailed recall of their childhood. They can find that even to admit to themselves what happened seems deeply disloyal to the very parents who subjected them to the dysfunction or abuse! With that highlighted for them, only then do they begin to appreciate the extent of their denial.

One myth with far wider ramifications is being systematically dismembered by cognitive research. Hitherto, the unique behavioural patterns and defences of any individual have often been interpreted as the sum total of what that person is as a person. Yet, truth to tell, those behaviours were mere strategies adopted by that person as an immature, inexperienced child to protect him or herself from the worst effects of parental dysfunction or abuse. These can mask a very different person trapped behind them. So often there is someone, though they have been hiding, they are capable of being released psychologically and motivated to shed their shell like a crab and begin living to the full.

I wish you well if you decide to embark on it and feels sure you feel emancipated by the process.

Sir Gerry Neale has lectured and trained under-graduates and post graduates at the University of Westminster in cognitive thinking. He has mentored courses for corporate strategic planning and how to position the organisation and the individual’s thinking in relation to them. He has conducted counseling and life coaching programmes with individuals in person and on-line. He paints watercolours, writes lyrics to music and writes fiction as well as non-fiction.

He can be reached on http://psychologysimplified.blogspot.com/ and http://cognitivementors.blogspot.com.

Abstract:

Many psychologists and theorists argue strongly for a model of a child’s developmental growth and character to a simple idea of parental influence (Freud 1900/Berne 1960) and social modelling by imitation (Bandura 1980). However in this paper I would like to explore the influence of cinema on how leading actors in film can have a huge influence over not only how society sees itself but how individuals can model certain aspects of screen persona to guide and influence their own lives.

Introduction:

If you ask most Americans what a man is like – they say, John Wayne. (L.A. Times – survey). Why would a generation of Americans identify with a movie actor as their ideal – someone who actually plays a role in a movie which is not real, a fantasy character that portrays a fictional often historic time or contemporary moment? Further more if the do identify with this actor and his screen persona how has that influenced their attitudes to life and a way of behaving that signifies not a father/mother role model but in fact a movie stars portrayal of a character. They often quote that the reason John Wayne never won many acting awards was because he was just being himself in all his parts. This is because certain actors become bigger than the movies they star in. So in this sense the public said it is a John Wayne movie rather than identifying with the story line (plot) of the film. Today we can think of the recent movie, 2012 about the end of the World through a solar disaster. Like all disaster movies the star is the special effects in which the actors take part as hapless victims of a catastrophe. The movie goers talk about the great visual scenes and not of the performance of the actors. This leads to the conclusion also that modern movie actors are less influential as role models than perhaps in the past. Today fans are more interested in celebrity than what they actually see on the screen. The actors have become the focus of teen idol rather than serious performers.

In child developmental terms as we grow up to a diet of movies from the past, of a Hollywood that we see and hear our screen hero’s talk tough, as men of action, having some key morality, handsome (in most cases) and stiffly romantic. If you grew up as a post Second World War baby television was in its infancy and so most children who had the means went to the cinema. Here they would see there hero’s on the big screen doing all those things they wish they could do, except those times have gone. The way of the West is past (and mostly fictions) the Gangsters and molls of the thirties have gone along with proabbition. So as a child you want to recreate that movie in the playground, in your bedroom, with your toy soldiers, teddy bears and your friends. A cardboard box in the garden became a fort, a motor car, a castle and any other thing that your mind could imagine. Today that is sadly lacking in modern youth, a diet of violent movies, depicting high-tech adversaries and special effects have left no room for the imagination of play. Instead we have a generation of lone children cosseted in bedrooms fixed to computer screens having all their needs met by someone else’s imagination through games and video shorts. You do not have to imagine being part of something – you are part of it – as the hero who directly shoots and finds your way through the levels of a computer game. Do not think – just react!

Childhood Moral Development

Movies of the past often had censorship rules to apply to where harmful content (in the Governments eyes) was strictly applied to prevent harmful language or content being absorbed by those who avidly watched movies. As times have gone by most censorship has vanished and replaced by a rating system that practically allows any content at the discretion of the audience who can choose whether to see a motion picture of not. Older movies then often depicted hero’s that through some trial would overcome all to do the “right thing”. Good overcame evil and people left the cinema knowing the World is always safe when hero’s can be counted on. So for the child watching, doing the right thing was a tenement of social learning in a society that saw the power of the Church decline in post WW2 amongst the young. Movies were almost the new tool for understanding the morality tales that the New Testament and other religious ideology tried to teach the readers. Now we could not just read about morality but see it on the screen, with flawed characters overcoming their difficulties to win out and put things to right. As a child watching these movies you would leave the cinema with a heightened idea of right and wrong, good and evil, for those growing up in the 70’s however things changed. Actors such as Clint Eastwood produced Westerns with an anti-hero; the Dollar Westerns had a man with no-name who as a gunslinger was interested in collecting money for dead outlaws, the bounty hunter. In these movies the anti-hero (Eastwood) would steal, kill and have easy sex without any moral thoughts other than take what you want by any means you can. For the young born in the 60’s this time of movies represented confused values. It was the time of the new teenager, the young with money to spend, better education than previous youth and a more rebellious stance towards authority than the previous generations. Later Clint Eastwood produced the anti-hero Dirty Harry a cop who got the job done despite his anti-authority attitude displayed in the movies. Again the youth of the 80’s saw that even within the legal system it was OK to kill the bad guy, torture your suspects and criticise the establishment all the time while the character Dirty Harry is actually part of that established order. Now children in play can be both hero and villain but can become morally confused about that role in real life. Could movies makers argue that they are in fact reflecting real life in film rather than the black and white tales of the 40’s and 50’s when the good guy wins and the bad guy dies? So this new realism is teaching children that sometimes the good guy loses, that bad things can happen to good people that bad people can come out on top? In psychology we call this the. “Just World Hypothesis” that good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people. However that teaches children that life is fair and just. However the message for the modern youth is that life is not fair, that many movies show terrible things happen to ordinary people. How does this then effect attitude from youth to the society they have to live and work in? Do modern movie going youth have a more realistic view of life or do they have just a new fantasy as warped by movies as the all manly John Wayne movies of the past? The movies are however a mixed category of viewing and popularity of types of movies go through phases too. Such as the Sci-Fi movies of the 70’s and the disaster movies of the 80’s and 90’s with the special effects of the 3D era after 2005 in such movies as Avatar.

Conclusions

I started this paper in stating that movies can have an effect on the attitudes, character growth and development of morality just as the influence of parents, society and peers in a child’s development. Those children in the past were given positive role models from movies that highlighted fairness, goodness and despite all odds the hero can overcome their foes. I have also tried to show that generations of movie goers have had various new influences that shed light on a changing moral climate in society along with a more anti-authoritarian youth with more realism in its outlook about whether life is fair or not.

Our parents told us to be good, to be honest and do the “right thing” but our movies have been talking to us at the same time where our hero’s of the silver screen have given us mixed messages from generation to generation so that modern youth shows less imagination than previous times, that modern youth has taken materialism as the goal of life and not doing good. I myself have been a fan of movies all my life and have seen the emergence of cinema as a great part of my growing up. Also that Hollywood over-shadows all other cultures in film making (at least in the past) even as a child growing up in England and Australia where I saw the more sober movies made in England as examples of what it is to be British, stalwart, stiff upper lip, unflappable and most of all a decent chap! We still wanted the Hollywood features as their movies stars always seemed bigger, more real and more heroic. Is part of the modern American character an imitation of each generations movies and that other cultures have changed to meet that influence by becoming materialistic and selfish in nature? Most psychological research of television and movie watching has concentrated on the negative effects of violence and desensitization of emotions but I think the movies also have a real positive role to play in a child’s development and parents should choose carefully what their child is watching because that is the child imitation you will have to deal with when you ask yourself as a parent, “where did they get that notion from?”

Afterword:

I should point out that my influences during my own youth were Westerns and War movies. John Wayne, Kirk Douglas and many others were my early hero’s who shaped my play and fantasy adventure, as I grew older the Hammer Horror movies from England changed my imagination to things you could not see in the dark but at the same time movies such as. Tom Brown’s School Days and Goodbye Mr. Chips made profound emotional content, later the English period of Hitchcock before he went to Hollywood such as Foreign Correspondent and other classics. As the 70’s arrived the biggest influence was probably Clint Eastwood and Steve McQueen. I find now as I am in my middle 50’s that I often re-watch the movies that influenced me as a child such as the Kung Fu movies of Bruce Lee (which made me take up Karate) and all the movies of the 30’s and 40’s where acting was what carried a movie and not special effects. Recently I went to the cinema to see Avatar in 3D (science fiction) and was very disappointed as the story line was incredibly thin and the 3D was interesting but did not actually add much to a poor quality script. However the modern audience of young people all seemed to like it. So at that I have to move over for this generation.

END….

Dr. Stephen Myler is from Leicester in England, an industrial town in the Midlands of the United Kingdom. He holds a B.Sc (Honours) in Psychology from the UKs Open University the largest in the UK; he also has an M.Sc and Ph.D in Psychology from Knightsbridge University in Denmark. In addition to this Stephen holds many diplomas and awards in a variety of academic areas including journalism, finance, teaching and advanced therapy for mental health. Stephen has as a Professor of Psychology many years teaching experience in colleges and universities in England and China to post 16 young adults, instructing in psychology, sociology, English, marketing and business. He has been fortunate to travel extensively from Australia to Africa to the United Sates, South America, Borneo, most of Europe and Russia. Stephens favourite hobby is the study of primates and likes to play badminton. He believes that students who enjoy classes with humour and enthusiasm from the teacher always come back eager to learn more.