Psychology Articles

The field of psychology encompasses many aspects that must be dealt with on a daily basis. Psychologists and others working in the field are often faced with moral dilemmas that may cause them to question the place of morals and spirituality in psychology. Those who practice some form of religion may use their specific values and morals when it comes to finding resolutions in these situations. There still lies the question of whether religion has a place in the day-to-day practice of psychology and if so, where to draw the line.

In part, psychology is considered a science. Though it is not exact in all situations, it does carry with it various similarities to science where theories and decision making are concerned. Ethics play a big role in psychology for both the roles of the psychologist or psychological professional conducting evaluations and providing treatment and the client or patient receiving the services or treatment. The code of ethics was put into place to protect both parties involved. Ethics is based on right and wrong and, can therefore be closely related to morality in many instances. Because of this, it can be argued that religion plays a role in the ethical decisions that are made everyday. Though the code of ethics does not specifically site religion as a part of what is contained there in, various aspects of morality and common values are found.

Spirituality as a whole has become even more prevalent in the field of psychology over the past several years as evidenced by the number of Christian counseling centers that have opened around the country. The professionals working in these settings offer what some say is the perfect combination of treatment, psychology based on Christian values and beliefs. Here the psychological principles and ethics are used with various aspects of religious values and beliefs interwoven into the treatment plans. Patients are often counseled on how spirituality can help them through their difficult situations. In these settings, professionals strive to find a balance between psychology and religion, a challenging task at times. Psychology is based on various principles, theories and ethics while religion is based mostly on faith. Psychological issues are proven in a scientific way while a good part of religion is based on belief in the unseen. While many people don’t question their faith, it can be difficult to intermingle what can be physically seen with what cannot. This causes many people to question the place of spirituality in psychology.

Because faith is often questioned, it has become necessary to receive proof. This proof often comes in the form of answers that are a direct result of the testing of ideas (Myers). When ideas are tested and found to be correct, faith is easier to maintain; however, then they do not survive the test, faith can become a very shaky prospect. When this principle is applied to psychology, the outcome can change on a regular basis. Different situations call for different ideas which may or may not prove to work. Also, what works in one situation may prove impossible in another. The key to understanding where spirituality fits in is knowing how to apply it to each individual situation and idea and make determinations and assessments based on the information that is gathered and the particular values that are relevant to the end result.

To better understand where religion fits into the psychological realm, let’s take a closer look at the human attributes that make up each. Where religion is concerned there is the theological wisdom. This deals with the acceptance of divine love in order to enable individuals to accept themselves. Psychological wisdom, however, deals with self-esteem, optimism and personal control (Myers). The ability to use the two together to make important decisions will provide the freedom to use what we know, admit what we don’t and search for the answers. Because we are both the creatures and creators of our own social world, people and situations matter (Myers). While ultimate control lies beyond us, we carry responsibility for making important decisions that have a lasting effect on us as well as others.

Psychologists face these dilemmas everyday. They must make important decisions that will directly effect their patients. Each decision is made on an individual basis and is dependent on each specific situation and its own set of circumstances. Each decision will carry with it a separate set of ethical issues and dilemmas and the solution will remain unique to each. Religion is said to heal people while medicine was designed to do the same. The two often work in different contexts, but it can be argued that medicine was discovered because of ideas and values based on religious beliefs. Because of this, it is believed in many situations the two are used together to come up with treatment plans that will be both effective and long lasting.

In many ways, people who have great faith have found the insights and critical analyses of psychology to be supportive of the understanding they possess of human nature. Their assumption that religion is conducive to happiness and good health is also attributed in great part to psychology. The science of psychology offers principles that can be applied to the construction of messages that will prove both memorable and persuasive. Here the tasks of peacemaking and reconciliation are promoted in a way that offers solutions that will provide the means by which others can achieve happiness by establishing healthy relationships (Myers). While the science may challenge our way of thinking, the same can be said of religion. Faith is often questioned in an effort to find answers. This has proven to be helpful in many situations where the answer wasn’t clearly defined. Here, the science of psychology is used along with the religious beliefs to find solutions to problems that seemingly have no immediate or clear resolution. Still, faith is not always a negative aspect of psychology.

A strong value and belief system can help a psychologist working as a professional in the field deal with situations where the traditional psychological theories aren’t showing a definite answer. Here the process is reversed because religion is used to clarify a particular set of circumstances based on the lack of information that can be gathered at a given time. There are also times where one can support the other. Religious beliefs are often used to support the reasoning behind many ethical situations whereas psychology is often used to prove various religion based ideas. This is where the two can be used in tandem to come up with a truly unique solution that will work.

It has also been argued that faith plays an important role in a psychologist’s ability to use the information found in the code of ethics and psychological practices that are present everyday. This is based on the belief that people who possess strong faith are better able to understand the science of psychology because they can use the two together to come up with answers that are suited to each new set of circumstances. Here psychologists are not heavily relying on either faith or science, but instead are using them both to gain a better understanding of the situation as a whole. Those who believe in the contents of the code of ethics understand its importance and why it must play a role in psychology on a daily basis (Kafka). Those who possess strong religious beliefs usually strive to use them everyday when making ethical decisions and are often working toward an outcome built on both science and faith. Still there is a very important line between when to use the science of psychology and when to rely on the beliefs and values that often assist many in making daily life decisions.

When it comes to the co-mingling of psychology and spirituality, each has its own place. The scientific aspects of psychology are necessary in order to solve a wide range of problems and provide successful treatment to those in need. Still, spirituality can play a very important role in the rehabilitation of patients by making it easier to understand the psychological ramifications and why they exist. Spirituality and science can be used both during and after treatment. During treatment, religious beliefs may guide both the psychologist and patient toward making the right decisions and understanding difficult situations along the way. After treatment, religion can continue to help the patient as he or she moves onward through life while the scientific aspect may still remain present in the form of ongoing counseling or use of medication.

Psychologists can use both in their profession to make difficult decisions and deal with hard to solve problems. Aspects of each can be relied upon to provide the means by which to draw important conclusions that may help throughout the entire treatment process. Evidence has also shown that psychologists who know their profession but also possess strong religious beliefs are able to help their patients throughout treatment by passing on various virtues that promote positive thinking (Myers).

The end results of melding together both science and spirituality have been studied for a number of years. Some argue psychology should remain only a science while others feel the intertwining of science with religion can only serve to improve the overall outcome of treatment situations. The argument is also made that science as a whole has strong ties to religion and the two often give cause for the questioning of each other. Science can often prove what religion cannot and religion was the basis for the need to know, thus people began studying the how and why of scientific matters (Myers).

Some have explained the boundaries between psychology and religion by bringing up a few points that express how one relates to the other. One point is the correlation of scientific ideas presented in everyday human nature to religion and being able to site the information to show how it is all related. Another important point is the link between religion, prejudice, altruism and overall well-being (Myers).

When dealing with various psychological situations, it is just as important to realize the importance of the science as it is the religion. This is often difficult to do because of the differing beliefs and values possessed by each professional working in the field. Because of this, it is necessary for each to make decisions based on the psychological code of ethics along with the specific circumstances of each given situation. For those who are religious, spirituality will most likely play a role in the decision making process in a professional setting because it very likely does in any other. Those who utilize spirituality in day-to-day situations often rely on it to guide them in their professions. Though the psychological code of ethics may not have been created based specifically around the religious beliefs and values directly associated with spirituality, there are many similarities between ethical dilemmas and resolutions and those of a moral nature.

Correlations have also been reported between faith and subjective well-being. One example of this can be found in a National Opinion Research Center survey of 42,00 Americans that was conducted after 1972. Here 26 percent who never attended religious services reported being very happy while 47 percent of those participating in spiritual services on a regular basis, sometimes more than weekly reported also being very happy (Myers). Though this does not sho3w a direct link between religion and well-being, it does indicate that many people seek spirituality in various aspects of their lives. Whether the science of psychology and spirituality should be co-mingled in a professional setting can be a bit subjective as it is dependent upon the differing situations and those directly involved in the treatment processes. While there are correlations between the ethical code used by psychological professionals everywhere and the morality associated with religion, the two remain separate and can be called upon in any given situation where they may be deemed necessary or important. The code of ethics is used every day in the psychological setting, but whether or not spirituality is involved may be up to each professional working in the field.

REFERENCES

Code of Ethics: Understanding the Professional Conduct of Psychologists. Taken from http://clinical-psychology.suite101.com/article.cfm/psychologist_as_professional

Myers, David G. Psychological Science Meets the World of Faith. Taken from http://psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=1861.

For more information, please contact Dr. Joseph Coleman at jcoleman05@bellsouth.net or via phone at (504) 621-0966 (504) 621-0966

Ethics plays an important role in psychology from the beginning of the treatment process through rehabilitation. There are many ethical concerns that can arise all of which must be dealt with along the way. These various concerns can also vary from one psychological setting to another. These settings include: hospitals, physical rehabilitation centers and facilities specializing in chronic diseases to name only a few. As the number of psychologists and other professionals working in this field increases, so does the need to focus on areas of ethical concern (Lucignano and Lee). The ethical issues that can arise reach far beyond the medical setting and are present in other situations as well.

Important Ethical concerns include: role delineation, working within the medical model, taking on multiple responsibilities and maintaining confidentiality (Lucignano and Lee). Before any ethical issue can be recognized it must first be clearly defined. Though this article cannot encompass them all, those listed here are commonly encountered and must be dealt with on a regular basis.

The first ethical concern that will be discussed is role delineation. This is a primary concern because it lays the ground work for the responsibilities and expectations of the psychologist; however, there is not a consensus on specifically what constitutes the role of the psychologist in a medical setting. Since many psychologists work in the medical profession, this can present somewhat of a gray area. Instead, diverse terminology has often been used to define this particular role. Terms used include: health psychology, medical psychology, clinical psychology and behavioral medicine. This has presented past arguments over whether or not this lack of clarity in actual definition of terms is more than semantic confusion (Lucignano and Lee). The primary argument here is whether a psychologists’ actions and activities are included under one of these terms that are, for the most part, considered to be unstandardized in this context.

Working within the medical model is another ethical concern that must be considered in the medical field. In these instances, psychologists are usually working on teams that include a physician, social worker, speech pathologist, physical therapist and occupational therapist. Though all teams may not include every role listed above, it is very likely there will be at least two members on each. When this is the case, it is necessary for each person to work within his or her role in order to provide maximum treatment. Ethical awareness is an essential part of providing psychological treatment within the medical model. In a hospital, for instance, unique areas of stress may be present which effect both patients and members of the treatment team (Lucignano and Lee). As a result, there may be difficulties when it comes to the overall decision making process. There may be several causes for this because many people are working to rehabilitate one person. There are several patients so that team may, in effect, be responsible for rehabilitating a wide range of people all of whom are dealing with very different situations. Team members will not always agree on everything and important issues may need to be carefully examined by each team member when it comes to resolving them.

Taking on multiple responsibilities can also bring up ethical issues for psychologists no matter where they work. When treating patients, psychologists take a look at each as an individual and treat each situation accordingly. There are, of course, many responsibilities that come with providing treatment and the solution to a particular need may not always coincide with traditional means and methods of resolution. A psychologist in this type of situation may feel pressured by the many responsibilities he or she must tackle on a daily basis and may be torn between handling a specific one through traditional means or in a way that is unique to the situation. The more administrative duties the psychologist is given, the less time he or she will be able to spend rehabilitating patients. While this may not be an issue that is of top concern, it can arise nonetheless and will need to be dealt with in a way that allows the psychologist to take care of important job-related duties and provide the best treatment possible to all patients.

Maintaining confidentiality is a very important concern. While psychologists don’t have a problem keeping important patient details confined within the facilities with which they are employed, ethical issues can arise when it becomes necessary to discuss certain situations with other professionals. When this occurs, the psychologist involved must decide whether or not the information needs to be passed onto the person requesting it or if a particular piece of information needs to be disseminated to someone else for treatment purposes.

In other situations, a psychologist may be asked for specific information about a current or former patient. While the information in question may be important in the given context, the confidentiality of the patient may be breeched if it is provided. Here the psychologist is faced with a moral dilemma of sorts. He or she knows the information is important and the person requesting it probably should be made aware, but is under a professional obligation to the patient to keep from sharing it. Should this occur, the psychologist can talk to the patient about the situation, informing him or her of the request and why it was made. The final decision of whether or not to provide the information will then be left up to the patient who will be responsible for its dissemination should this be the end result.

When it comes to solving ethical dilemmas, it is important to first understand the code that has been established. When going to work for a particular entity, psychologists will receive information that will instruct them on the various policies and regulations. In order to solve the issues that are bound to arise at one time or another, they will need to assess the individual situations and make a determination on what to do based on the ethical principles that have been set forth. Some dilemmas will be easier to solve than others and will be based around more black and white issues of right and wrong. Other times, distinguishing between right and wrong will not be so easy to do. In some cases, the answer will not lie in a simple context of right and wrong, but instead will be specific to the various factors involved. When this occurs it is often not quite so easy to make the determinations that solve these ethical dilemmas. When this happens, psychologists depend heavily on the ethical principles they have learned as well as the specific policies established by the entities for which they are employed.

One common problem that occurs is in solving particular ethical dilemmas by using the principles when the situation is not completely clear. Sometimes problems arise that call for extensive decision making based on individual factors that cannot be figured into the original ethical principles. Each situation is different and must be treated as such and therefore, will have an individual set of issues that may arise. When this occurs, the psychologist must make a determination based on the specific factors involved while using the ethical principles in a way that will solve the problem without causing an ethical conflict.

Ethics are present for a reason. They are necessary when solving a wide variety of problems that may arise on an individual basis. Though these issue are just that, individual, a uniform code is needed to help psychologists understand and deal with certain types of situations. The place of ethical concerns in psychology applies to psychologists both as researchers and practitioners. Ethics are present in every aspect of psychological practices and must be adhered to in every context. A set of ethical guidelines has been established to aid psychologists in figuring out what to do when these situations arise. All psychologists are bound by these guidelines.

Though ethical guidelines have been established, there is often a debate on whether or not certain issues fall within them and what psychologists should don when they occur. Still, the place of ethics in psychology is not newly found. Aristotle made several important psychological observations concerning the limits beyond which humans cannot control their own behavior, sanity and their capacity for emotional response (Upton). Though these principles have been studied for many years, other issues have arisen specific to new situations and debates. That is why understanding the code of ethics and why it has been established is essential to solving various issues that can, and often do occur.

The code of ethics outlines the responsibilities of the psychologist and establishes what is considered acceptable and unacceptable in regards to the practice of psychology. This code of ethics is multi-dimensional and must be adhered to in order for a psychology to maintain his or her license (Kafka). Since licenses are granted by each individual state of residence, a psychologist working in any particular location is bound by the specific practices established in that place. This practice is defined through roles and obligations a psychologist will possess so there will be consistency within the field. Likewise, the license a psychologist obtains will have meaning to the public who can easily learn what is expected of a professional working in the field.

The main goal is the psychological code of ethics is to insure that all clients and patients are treated in a professional, lawful and respectful manner when seeking treatment (Kafka). Here behaviors are defined that specify how the psychologist will handle the various situations that may arise during the course of treatment for all clients or patients. The ethical code regulates the way in which many behaviors are dealt with and how situations may be resolved. This includes both the private and institutional practice of psychology. This guarantees that anyone who receives service from a psychologist who is adhering to the code of ethics is insured professional, humane treatment that causes no psychological or physical harm. Should the ethical code be breeched for any reason, the situation is investigated and handled accordingly.

The code of ethics is also designed to protect the public from uses and abuses that may result from the mishandling of a particular situation. These protections include: physical, emotional or even financial and cover a wide range of factors related to the practice of psychology. The code contains numerous clauses that clearly specify practices that are considered to be acceptable in regards to billing procedures, file maintenance procedures and even what should occur during appropriate therapy termination. Many aspects include: job handling, office management and client handling. The acceptable versus unacceptable behaviors are defined as well as what actions should be taken if any part of the code is breeched.

The code of ethics directs both the psychologist and client or patient away from conflicts of interest. The existence of dual roles is one conflict that can occur when inappropriate relationships are established between psychologists and those they serve. The ethical code specifies how these situations should be handles and helps both parties in maintaining lawful, socially responsible behavior. This insures the psychologist will be able to treat clients or patients in a positive manner that will promote rehabilitation while clearly drawing the line for those receiving the treatment that clearly defines the appropriate relationship of psychologist and patient. While there may be many arguments surrounding specific situations and what actually constitutes an ethical dilemma, the code is clearly defined and should be closely followed at all times. There are many situations that can certainly present ethical dilemmas, but the code remains in place to help guide psychologists when they must deal with issues that may prove rather difficult. This well-established code not only serves as a guide but also as a way of protecting everyone involved in the treatment process. The ethical code is an important part of the psychological practice because it clearly defines how to deal with important issues that can arise during the course of treatment. This aids psychologists in making important decisions and helps them to better understand the psychological professional as a whole.

REFERENCES

Kafka, Pauline. May 7, 2008. Psychologist Code of Ethics
Understanding the Professional Conduct of Psychologists. Taken from http://clinical-psychology.suite101.com/article.cfm/psychologist_as_professional

Lucignano, Geraldine, Lee, Sandra. Ethical Issues Involved in the Role of Psychologists in Medical Settings. Taken from http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5002168429.

Upton, Candace L. The Journal of Ethics. Virtue Ethics and Moral Psychology: The Situationism Debate. Taken from scienceofvirtues.org.

For more information, please contact Dr. Joseph Coleman at jcoleman05@bellsouth.net or via phone at (504) 621-0966

How do I start? It’s gonna be difficult to write this post in a way that everyone can ready it and at the same time don’t commit heresy by not being rigorous and awaken the wrath of my colleagues.

Also, I don’t want to get into the “politics” of Freudian Psychoanalysis and the “war” it’s into against other branches of Psychology such as cognitive sciences. The point I’m trying to prove is that Freudian Psychoanalysis and the people who study and has studied it (including me) have some points and miss some others.

I think Freud was dead right regarding the dynamics of the unconscious mind (the existence of unconscious processes is not arguable). (mental note: avoid being technical) Once you understand the theory and articulate it, you can trace behaviors back to its’ elemental state. It’s a tool to comprehend how the human (animal) mind functions while in contact with culture.

The error (I’m not being modest here, sorry) I often see, is that its’ application to our “real world” (I’m really using those two words very loosely) often fail. And why do I think so?

Because some people tend to extrapolate the exact Freudian Theory to current cases. I could say that studying Psychoanalysis during the 1900s was a lot easier. Today we need to make an extra effort. Why?

Because Freud wrote at the end of the XIX century and beginning of the XX in a much more different society. With no mass media, no internet, no cell phones, no cars… and let’s not start about the social differences of Victorian Europe. Spring Break could have killed half of the Old Continent’s population of heart attacks.

Today, the effort we have to make is to dismount that carpet of social fantasies put together. We have new ones 100 years in the future. Our society is a lot different than that of WWI. We see the world, we interpret it, in a different way. We can’t pretend that the world hasn’t changed. We have to put the new carpet of our post-modern world on top of the naked roots of Psychoanalysis. Same basic rules of cognitive functioning still apply, we just need to connect them to our current individual and collective fantasies, goals, desires.

Psychoanalysis was popular because it addressed the exigencies that that world posed. And that’s a criticism that many branches of Psychology are making. We could even find something new, something we haven’t been looking for.

I realize that if I keep writing, this post would reach an asymptotic line on the “Over” axis. I know I’m leaving a lot of loose ends, maybe one every 10 words. But my goal was to address a point and stick to it. Lots of ideas come to mind but it would make this post lose its purpose.

PS: Flak welcome

Fernando Tarnogol is an Argentinean psychologist, currently working as Program Coordinator at the Devereux Foundation in West Chester, Pennsylvania.

He has studied Psychology at the University of Buenos Aires and Human Resources Management at UADE (Argentinean University of the Enterprise). His professional experience includes work in HR for HSBC Bank Argentina and in two mental health facilities performing psychological evaluations and other clinical work.

Visit his blog at http://fernandotarnogol.com/

The year is 2009 and it has been over a century since popular consciousness has widely accepted the fact that humans are just another type of animal. Curiously, even as humans are increasingly accepting of political and cultural pluralism, there is still insufficient focus on how pluralism in general arises from differences in breeds of humans. Populous mammals like dogs and cats have a number of breeds that cluster by physiological external differences like size and internal neural differences like aggressiveness, friendliness, and task specialization. Humans of course are no different (even if their neural computers are able to run remarkably advanced virtual simulation and symbol manipulation programs).

The implications stand to improve the psychological quality of life and raise consciousness for billions of people. Although short sighted knee jerk idiots may think implications will automatically cause a return to forced eugenics (as practiced by countries like Sweden, USA, and Germany in the first half of the 20th century) or measurement of skulls to filter potential criminals, such proclamations point more to the pessimistic nature of those who make them. Scientific inquiry and further development of concepts known to be true have historically brought more net positives (raised the living standard of the human herd by allowing them to live longer and do less labor through technology) than net negatives such as destructive wars (brought on more by non-democratic political arrangements than technology used to wage them). Advancing study of implications from humanity being comprised of numerous unequally distributed breeds is worth the risks. Treatment of different breeds and self esteem of individuals within each breed stand to improve if there is strong emphasis that each breed is logically as important as the other in its social usefulness (although social usefulness should never be the only or even main criteria in social sciences or policy).

Right now we have a world where the German Shepards, the Pitbulls, the Poodles, the Border Collies, and the Golden Retrievers are all rightfully treated the same but they suffer from the problem of more numerous breeds (as well as the most vicious/cunning ones) determining what breed is the universal ideal for a human. Each person judges all others based on what the one judging is good at physiologically. A very empathic person judges others based on empathy. A conservative one judges the rest on how good of a conservative they are. Same applies to all the others be they a partying hedonist, an introverted scientist, an artist, an athlete, or a social butterfly with highly developed taste buds (“how can others eat that crap!?”).

This is a very natural problem to have for humanity. Since every person subconsciously wants to expand personal power in all directions, for thousands of years, the strongest or more numerous breeds have tended to not just make their personalities and ideas into universal law for others but to actually buy into their own lies that everybody else should strive to be like the rulers. Even societies with caste systems were not immune as seen by India’s inegalitarian caste valuation (warriors over farmers) and transformation from a caste system with social mobility to the entrenched stagnant system we now mentally associate it with.

A previous article touched on how Myers-Briggs personality test is a good quick way to get a glimpse of what neural breed a person is, how numerical predominance of some breeds helps preserve status quo, and how the differences in neural architecture split and unite people a lot more than externally visible characteristics like skin and hair color. If we use a typology system like Myers-Briggs, it soon becomes obvious that although breeds can form natural dominant coalitions (SJs) and (SPs), there will still be a lot of socially tangible differences within each coalition. That is enough to pose a serious problem not just for rare breeds like INTJs but common ones as well.

That problem is depressed self esteem from comparison of one self to those breeds that thrive in whatever socioeconomic system exists at the time (and whose mode of being are widely emulated for this reason) and from feeling alone and excluded since no breed exceeds 15% numerically. Whether it is an athlete, an artist, or a scientist, they are always outnumbered which leads to wishing that everybody else or themselves was different. Even within dominant pro status quo coalitions of SJs and SPs, a difference, between an ISTJ and an ESFJ for example, can be so great as to make them not get along well at all. This problem is heightened for NF and NT coalitions. Depression and various neurotic behavior thus results on a large scale. When a person says that nobody understands them, the case often is that vast majority (90%+ people) really don’t fundamentally understand them. How can a German Shepherd understand a Chiwawa and vice versa? Only mutts provide the imperfect understanding bridge.

The often failed emulation of the most able to “make it” (or seen as more able) may be a more serious threat to the health of people’s ego, their self respect, and their pride. Just as an emotionally cold and aggressive person may feel distressed when living in a hippy commune, a naturally empathic and kind Golden Retriever will feel distressed and alone in a society that values warrior Pitbulls. Similarly, when the types who make it in United States financial sector (children of the rich, psychopaths, and some of the more cunning SPs and NTs), a vast social pressure is created to pound in square pegs in round holes and be more like what is deemed “successful”. It is no different than if soldiers were in charge and we all had to admire wars and go to bootcamps to be seen as having the right stuff.

As for psychopaths, their natural ability to blend in (so they can live off the herd better) makes them strong candidates to make it in any system. A super inegalitarian monetarist imperial system like our own is an extra juicy jungle to thrive in. Proportionally to psychopaths’ population (1% for the true clinical ones and up to 6% for the subclinical ones), they are overrepresented on Wall Street and in prison (8% and 20% respectively for clinical ones).

Subclinical psychopaths can just be some breeds backgrounds seem like good general prerequistives whose T function and lack of empathy is so high as to make them exploit the herd (rather than improving it as has been the trait most admired in leadership by history) without a second thought. In fact it may be unfair to even have the concept of a “psychopath” as it represents just another breed of human that is adept at preying on fellow humans with elaborate disguises. Psychological pathology after all, represents mental “sickness” and mental “sickness” is just majority’s flawed way to single out and focus on fringe breeds and individuals whose backgrounds make it extra difficult for them to make it. Not one breed is logically and generally more normal/abnormal or maladaptive/adaptive than the other since “normal” and “adaptive” is the bell curve average for a particular society.

Understanding these physiological differences can allow people to have more pride in who they are and develop towards a truly pluralistic and more compassionate society. Human breed science doesn’t have to be a nightmare world. People like Foucault, Rousseau, and Kaczynski have made strong and effective arguments on how the more technologically advanced society becomes the less free we are. We need to understand these concerns and consequences of progress in social sciences but we can’t turn the clock back since luddite solutions are not just impractical but inhumane.

Understanding that there are different breeds of Homo Sapiens (with often different needs and modes of thought) can allow society to:

1) Treat, help, and nurture each type better so as to make healthier hyperspecialized types. We can have healthier and better artists, cops, scientists, etc.

2) Treat, help, and nurture mutts better so as to have better ambassadors and communicators between the strongly specialized breeds

3) Develop better science as to which breeds work best with each other so as to prevent, mediate, and solve social conflicts

4) Help identify and isolate predatory humans better so as to lessen their abuses, reduce the number of their victims, and integrate them into society more productively

5) Strengthen proportional representation democracy and bring more harmony to the herd while preventing unhealthy caste structures from reemerging

6) Increase efficiency, productivity, and general happiness of society by allowing individuals to make full use of their strengths and be more proud of their neural architecture

Lets fully embrace what science has been telling us so we can graze on this planet with less confusion. A confused herd will make a poor recipient for when the singularity arrives. Lets end with a pro-mutt quote to balance the article and emphasize perils of too much specialization.

“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.” -Robert A. Heinlein

I’m in the midst of reading a fascinating book by Philip Alcabes. The very title, “Dread: How Fear and Fantasy Have Fueled Epidemics from the Black Death to Avian Flu” gives me fodder for at least one article without even reading the book.

There is so much fuel for thought in this book, that you will have the opportunity to read several articles as my mental juices are stimulated.

As a Mind-Body Psychotherapist I work with the concept and the emotion of fear. From the lowest level of anxiety to full blown panic, this emotion can cause the heart to race and one to shudder in anticipation of the possible event that one’s life feels out of control.

Decisions made when in a state of fright are not, by their very nature, rational. It’s an emotion, not logic.

The amygdala in the limbic brain becomes activated when we are overwrought. The cortex, the rational part of the brain takes a back seat. The admonition to be reasonable has no effect other than to induce anger in someone in a state of severe agitation.

Let’s look at the word “epidemic.”

Do a “gut check” right now. Just reading the word, does your abdomen twist a little, perhaps even hurt? Do you want to act on emotion or are you calm enough to look beyond the hype to the facts and evaluate the pros and cons of your actions.

Think of your beliefs regarding this word bandied about by FOX, CNN and other national and local news sources. Looking in the thesaurus, one of the phrases is “widespread disease.” That’s what the “ordinary” person thinks of. The mind then runs to such things as the plague, AIDS, SARS, bio-warfare, H1N1 and so on.

People are in such panic they are ready to take any vaccine the pharmaceutical industry dishes out, even though it has not been tested, to avoid getting sick.

What does “epidemic” mean to epidemiologists. Alcabes, who is an associate professor of Urban Public Health at Hunter College of the City University of New York, as well as a visiting professor at Yale’s School of Nursing, describes it as a “disease” appearing more often than usual.

When flu season hits, the outbreak hits the news. When another teen dies in an automobile accident, unless he or she is prominent, the family grieves privately. The number of teens who loose their lives on the road while in a car is four or five times that from illness. Yet the tragedy of the lost future in our youth is not continually in public awareness.

The flu outbreak is unusual. The death from another car crash is tragic but not unusual.

How we handle the out of the ordinary depends upon our own beliefs as well as the attempt of public agencies to influence feelings and actions.

The question for you to examine is, “Are you able to gather information before following the hysteria driven sound bites, or do you allow yourself to be swept away in the artificially created tsunami of fear?”

Cathy Chapman, Ph.D., LCSW is a licensed clinical social worker assisting people achieve their dreams of health, wealth and abundance through Mind-Body Psychology. She works from a spiritual and energetic model employing BodyTalk and Psych-K to balance the body and change beliefs. Cathy offers free of charge a powerful spiritual healing tool anyone can use. Get your Soul Healing Prayer now at http://www.distancegrouphealing.com.

The Source of All Good Healing

Psychology and fundamentalism at best have been polite opponents. In recent history, say the last 50 years, this opposition has become vigorous and often less than polite. Many churches, such as Calvary, completely eschew all mental health practitioners (whether social workers, psychiatrists or counselors) and staunchly maintain that all healing comes directly from God or prayer and that all you need in order to develop and maintain a robust mental health may be found in Scripture or a prayer session.

This rejection of psychotherapy may have been a reaction to the “I’m okay, you’re okay” generation of therapists who did very little for most people except to allay the anxieties of narcissists and sociopaths by telling them “if it feels good, it is good.” In the eyes of both Orthodox Jews and Christians, the field of humanistic psychology took the whole program of self-improvement one giant step too far, putting man in the center of the universe, particularly his own.

Their objections were not wrong. And I say this as a holistic psychotherapist with almost 25 years of experience in the field.

I have seen far too many well-meaning therapists do little more for their patients than make them feel better about being sick. They are loath to challenge or confront negative behavior or unhealthy thinking because they fear being seen as judgmental. As a result of their tentative relationships with the truth, they fail in their relationships with their patients. They do not see what needs to be healed so the patient is left unhealed. This is truly a disservice to the patient because what it ultimately does is feed the pathology and starve the essence of the person.

I think all good and true healing flows from the same Source which means that there can be an alliance-and an important one-between the Biblical and Mental Health communities. But only if we have an understanding of our terms and are actually seeking the same results.

What is Healthy? What is Unhealthy?

According to Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., after whom dozens of medical colleges around the world have been named, physical health presents with a very clear picture which is eternally derived from a healthy spiritual state.

“In the healthy human state, the spirit-like life force (autocracy) that enlivens the material organism as dynamis, governs without restriction and keeps all parts of the organism in admirable, harmonious, vital operation, as regards both feelings and functions, so that our indwelling, rational spirit can freely avail itself of this living, healthy instrument for the higher purposes of our existence.”

He goes on:

“The material organism, thought of without life force, is capable of no sensibility, no activity, no self-preservation. It derives all sensibility and produces its life functions solely by means of the immaterial wesen (the life principle, the life force) that enlivens the material organism in health and in disease.”

Therefore…health depends on a healthy wesen or life force or spirit. It is a process that proceeds from above down, from the inside out. This is also the philosophical underpinning of a proper holistic psychotherapy and the pivot point of all Scripture on the subject of good health.

Biblical Healing

Let us start with basics. What has the Bible been saying about health (whether mental, emotional or physical) for the past several thousand years? The following is a small sample of references:

“Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear and respect the Lord and shun evil. This will bring health to your body and nourishment to your bones.” Proverbs, 3:7-8

“Hope deferred makes the heart sick; but when hopes are realized at last, there is life and joy.” Proverbs, 13:12

“Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. And are you not worth much more than they?” Matthew, 6:26

“This is what the Lord says: ‘Your wound is incurable, your injury is beyond healing. There is no one to plead your cause, no remedy for your sore, no healing for you. All your allies have forgotten you; they care nothing for you…. But I will restore you to health and heal your wounds…’” Jeremiah, 30:12-14, 17

“Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.” John, 14:27

Even in this cursory perusal, it’s easy to see that the biblical concepts of health are the same as those taught to graduate students in counseling: Hope, faith and an acceptance of reality, an understanding that we are not the center of the universe, peace of heart (a release of worry), generosity, service, humility, joy, and love. I am sure there is more, but I believe this is a good core to start with.

Clinical Healing

I have worked with individuals, families, couples and adolescents for almost 25 years. They have been both mandated to see me under duress and crawled in desperate for help. I have seen a wide enough range of people to ask a few pointed questions and hopefully seen enough recovery and healing to offer a couple of observations.

The first question: What are the things that lead to poor health, whether physical or mental/emotional?

In my experience, they are the same things the Bible warns us about over and over and over: Pride, Sloth, Greed, Gluttony, Envy, Lust and Wrath.

Almost every single patient I have ever had was doing battle with pride in some way. Some were engaged in battle with nearly all of them at once. And I admit openly that almost every pain I have ever suffered myself had something to do with at least one of those sins or as some people call them, “character defects.”

One woman whom we shall call Sonia came to my office about 15 years ago. She was addicted to pain killers. She had some physical symptoms, but they were not the reason for the prescription or the solution for the pain she needed to heal. She complained about her mother, even though she had not spoken to her in many years and was enormously indignant (a combination of pride and wrath) about how she had been wronged. As she spoke of all the things her mother had done to her, she clenched her jaw and her hands.

When later in treatment I offered up the possibility that her continued rage (wrath) at what had been done to her those many years ago was actually only hurting her and that perhaps it was time for her to accept the fact that her mother had failed her and begin to consider forgiveness, she became outraged (pride). In her mind, accepting the reality of her mother’s inadequacies (without making them her own) was unthinkable. Her mother had to be shown who was right and who was wrong. Sonia equated acceptance with excuse and could not, would not see it any other way. The end result? She stayed in pain and addicted to pain killers. Her pride would have it no other way. When the choice between being “right” or happy was presented to her, she chose to be right.

The second and perhaps more pertinent question: How do we treat these problems in the modern world? What is a psychotherapist to do if the purpose is to facilitate true healing and he or she is not a priest, pastor, or rabbi? We are not preachers. Our job is slightly different and the people who come to us are not always ready for (or necessarily interested in) an extreme spiritual make-over. People who may not be ready to go to a church or synagogue may need to someone objective who will just listen to them and hear their suffering. Many people need to talk before they can learn to pray. And the therapeutic relationship-if it is handled properly-can be the training ground for having other relationships, including one with God.

There is a difference between preaching and manifesting. It is good to inspire others with great thoughts about God. It is also good to manifest God’s love through presence and compassion. There are times that a patient may be too angry at God to hear someone say, “God loves you,” but not too angry to have God’s love quietly demonstrated through patience, understanding, and honest integrity. And this may be the first time he or she has ever experienced it.

In my experience, what we have to do to be healing in psychotherapy is not all that different than scripture prescribes even if it is presented and packaged a little differently.

After working with patients for these 20+ years, I have broken it into five segments or stages, all of which I believe are biblically supported although none of these are dependent on one particular faith or point of view. All the seven deadly sins (or character defects) may be individually or collectively addressed at any point along these five stages. These stages are only clinical observations, not rules and shouldn’t be approached legalistically.

I: Hope

All recovery-whether from drugs, depravity, or desperate fear-begins with a promise of hope, that there is “another way” to be, to live, to feel, to love and be loved. This hope is offered in different ways by different people, but I have found it best received by my patients in the form of personal and true stories of redemption (mine or others), of living examples of other people’s recoveries, of their emotional, mental and spiritual salvations.

When we see the pain of the other person’s struggles, feel the roller coaster of his unfolding temptations and challenges, identify with her frustrations and longings and then witness her release and deliverance…we can begin to hope. If it happened for them, perhaps it can happen for me…? All a good psychotherapist needs is one good perhaps and the work can at least get started.

Most of my initial work with patients is an infusion of hope. Some are so habituated to sadness, to pain, to loss, to deprivation, that they simply cannot imagine anything but the way they’ve always been. “But you are here in my office, so there must be some small ember still burning,” I tell them. But many need quite a bit of tender care-a very careful fanning-for that flame to begin to burn again. So I pace them. (Pacing (*1) is a clinical term meaning that I am walking with the patient rather than running in front of him or dragging behind him.)

II: Surrender

Surrender is a word that gives moderns the shudders. What we are told to want for ourselves is power and control. We are carefully and consistently taught in graduate school to nurture in our patients their “self-empowerment” and imbue in them a solid sense of control. This can be important and necessary in very measured doses, particularly when a person has been abused and even the most personal controls have been denied them. But it can go too far and be endowed too freely.

Even some evangelists have done that with “prosperity gospel.” In that philosophy you can tell where a person is spiritually by what he owns and how well his career is doing. Ask and ye shall receive, they remind us. But instead of its focus on the spiritual it has become a modern, media spin on the Doctrine of the Elect and Predestination: How do we know you have found God’s favor? Because you’re successful. How do you get to be successful? By God’s favor. So, the goal is to acquire wealth, prestige, and power. Somewhere along the line even the ministers have forgotten, “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

In the beginning of my own rebirth into sanity, the idea of surrender terrified me. I know from my own experience that surrender is at the very least an uncomfortable concept for most people. And some are not just tentative about it, they are panic-stricken, which is only reasonable since they have not yet come to trust that the universe is purposeful, creative, and meaningful. (For me that is God and, again, my surrender only came when I came to believe that God actually loved me.) For many of those just coming into therapy, the universe has been a hurtful, oft-meaningless, chaotic, unfair place. We cannot surrender to the abyss, to a vast darkness, to a deist blob that couldn’t care less whether we existed or not, to a universe without love or meaning. I certainly can’t imagine doing that. And I didn’t. I couldn’t. So, I present it in the way it was successfully presented to me-with great care and in small steps: Initial surrender means to accept reality. That’s it. Not to like it or excuse it. Just to accept it as real.

Accepting reality is something people can consider even when reality is harsh, even when they are scared, hurt, or confused. Accepting reality is the underpinning of sanity. Denial is the basis for all insanity. When surrender is presented initially in this way, it becomes manageable.

So, what can they surrender to? I keep it simple. They can surrender to the fact that their lives are not working, or the unhappiness they live with at home, or the way they feel and make other people feel when they’re drinking. They surrender to the facts first.

Why? We surrender first to reality because as we’ve been told: “The truth shall set you free.

Surrender in this way, taken in these gentle, baby steps, is what gets us strong enough to make the fuller, sweeter surrender, to take the leap into the love-both human and Divine-that is, as C.S. Lewis and Peter Kreeft call it, our heart’s deepest longing.

III: Honesty

If truth is what we need, then honesty is what we must give. Why isn’t my life working? Why is my spouse always angry? Why am I so easily offended? Why do I have trouble stepping out of the house? What do I feel? What do I need? What do I stumble over myself again and again and again?

This is a coming-clean, a venting, an admission of wrong-doing, a confession of mistakes and a map of wrong turns. It is what Alcoholics Anonymous has called a Fourth Step, what the Church calls a moral reckoning or examination of conscience, and the Jews a “tikun” or correcting. And it is absolutely necessary, whether one is an alcoholic or not, whether one is in a 12-step program or not, whether one belongs to a religion or not.

It is a brave step, this one. It takes courage to say “I really loused up that relationship,” or “I was a coward when it came to my career,” or “I was as abusive as she said I was.”

Interestingly, it is at this point that the need for hope returns. It is very painful to look at all we’ve done wrong and terribly hard to imagine that it can ever be any different. In my work, this is a good time to remind someone of what is possible, returning again to the stories-the true stories-of redemption and the view from the top of the mountain.

Some ways back I knew a young woman (details disguised to protect identity) who had been seen by numerous therapists. She’d been diagnosed with PTSD, Bipolar disorder, and borderline personality disorder. She’d been medicated, treated with a dozen techniques, restrained for cutting, and finally written off as hopeless.

We spoke about her life, current and past. After about a month of piecing together her history, we landed on the issue of an abortion she’d had when she was 15. She had been so afraid: the boy who had father the child had abandoned her, her parents were busy with work and a very high-level social life, and she had no older or wiser siblings to guide her. Her life with the family’s church had been cut off earlier because everyone had been simply too busy to bother with it. (She had been raised and baptized Catholic.) Ultimately her support and direction came from the media and from the information available at school.

I asked her about the abortion and how she felt about it. She answered with honest curiosity, “Why are you asking?”

“Because it’s a big event, especially for a little girl,” I said.

“No one else seemed to think so.”

“What do you mean?”

“Everyone else seemed to think it was no big deal. You just go and do it.”

“Did you see it as no big deal?” I asked.

She started to cry.

It took some time and many tears, but she was neither borderline, bipolar, nor hopeless. She was guilt-ridden, not by my accounting but her own. In an effort to be what her surrounding culture believed she was supposed to be, she had to lie about how she felt, what she wanted, and what she really needed. Telling the truth was her first step out of the pain and the pathology.

This accountability is a way of owning our mistakes so we can move forward to owning our achievements. If everything is everyone else’s fault, then we are the victims of happenstance and there truly is no hope. People are awfully skittish about being accountable because they have been shamed and blamed to excess, but this is not about shame. This is the yellow brick road to freedom.

IV: Service

What does it take to make it better once we know what we’ve been doing wrong?

This is actually a more controversial question than one may imagine because according to many people in the field one must always focus on the positive. And by in large, they make a convincing point. Noticing what works often works. For some patients, I am the first one in their entire lives to say, “I see you. I see what is good in you. Let us look further to see what else you have that is good and can get better.”

However, I think going fully in either direction-focusing only on the positive or focusing only on all the wrongdoing-is a mistake. There must be a balance, an acknowledgment of both aspects or inclinations of our natures. As the first story of Adam and Eve illustrates, we are not wholly good or wholly evil. We have capacities in either direction and to become good or to continue to be good, it takes a conscious effort and awareness of both those inclinations. We must nurture the one and starve the other.

How is that best done?

First and foremost, through service and good works, even when we don’t feel like it. There’s nothing better for someone full of self-pity and hypochondria than to get out and volunteer. I had one young woman volunteer at an old age home. I had another at a soup kitchen. It doesn’t matter how we give, but in order to grow, we must start somewhere.
Through humility even when we feel boastful or proud or angry or indignant. We must do for others, like say we are sorry, even when we want to dig in our heels.
Through patience and generosity even when we feel deprived and impatient.

Service to others is seen by many as a healing of a higher order, which is why it comes later in the 12-Steps of A.A.-we can only offer what we have learned or gained. “If you want to keep it [recovery], give it away,” recovering addicts and alcoholics are told. The meaning there is clear-you must first have it to give it.

There is another side to this, though. Some of us call it “Act as if” and contend we only learn what we teach and only get what we give away. I think it works both ways and it is up to a good clinical team (meaning the patient and the therapist) to determine when and how to go about this. I am no Solomon. What I know, though, is that service-at any time it seems possible and right-is beneficial to the mind, the heart, the body, and the soul.

V: Forgiveness

Without forgiveness, we are stuck in the wrongdoing and don’t get to move forward into our new lives. My feeling is that pride is usually the blockage on this. We won’t forgive because we’re right, damn it! And we want to be vindicated even more than we want to be free or happy.

Forgiveness never denies the wrongdoing (Romans 3:10,23). But it forgives the doer, who clearly knows no better or is too sick to ever see the difference.

Forgiveness doesn’t mean we need to open our door to thieves. It doesn’t ask us to be fools. The irony is that the less one forgives, the more hardhearted, vengeful and angry one becomes and therefore the less one is able to see the truth of any kind. Hatred does not only reject joy, it rejects truth and can’t recognize a real threat when it’s there.

Forgiveness is often the last step in this small ladder to emotional and spiritual freedom.

As Corrie Ten Boom, a Christian woman who survived a Nazi concentration camp during the Holocaust, said, “Forgiveness is to set a prisoner free, and to realize the prisoner was you.”

One of the best examples of forgiveness is the story of Joseph and his brothers, who had collectively betrayed him and left him to die because of their own envy and greed. He crawled to survive, then was enslaved and thrown in prison. Many years passed. Still, when his brothers came to Egypt many years later, he not only forgave them after he saw that they had changed (and showed true repentance), he rejoiced in them.

Suffering: Is it Necessary?

There is one last issue I’d like to briefly address and that is the notion of suffering. I haven’t allotted it its own stage of recovery because it involves all of them.

The worst part of modern psychotherapy is that it does not allow for the existence of suffering. It insists on happiness as a human “right” and promotes its open-throttled pursuit along with everyone else in mass media and entertainment. This is the parting of ways between what is ordinary psychotherapy (and even those preaching the Prosperity Gospel I mentioned earlier who believe they can petition God for whatever worldly goods or emotional rewards they desire, quoting “ask and ye shall receive” as if it offered proof of God as the Great Pez Dispenser) and a holistic psychotherapy that is based in traditional Biblical values.

Part of the problem is that the modern age of psychotherapists see happiness-which is defined as the attainment of some desired goal-as the end goal of healing.

Orthodox Jews and Christians have a different take on this subject. While it is seen as normal to want to be happy, to be healthy, even to have material comfort it is not seen as the purpose of our existence. It is not even seen as terribly important. It is considered far more critical to be good than to get what you [think you] want. Happy is fine. Goodness and purposefulness and joy-they are far better and reach in far deeper.

What is even more troubling to me is that I see people wanting the rewards of happiness without even the minimum of self-sacrifice. Americans particularly believe it is their “right.” We have been told so repeatedly by the media and psychologists, and even a whole generation of “hip” preachers. Do what makes you happy. It’s all that counts.

The philosophical pinnacle of this thinking is in New Age theology, where sickness, injury and tragedies are defined as self-inflicted manifestations of poor core programming. In that epistemology, Mystery is abolished and we are responsible for everything that happens to us and around us. If abundant health and wealth and beauty are our birthrights, then suffering means we have either done something wrong to deserve it or written bad scripts for our lives.

Given this mental and emotional mulch we are planted in, it is no wonder that we are so worried about our bodies, our bank accounts, and our images. We fret about face lifts more than we do about whether we have a neighbor that needs our help because she has been bed-ridden for a week.

Denying suffering has a price that is incomprehensibly enormous. Because when we deny suffering (which as Buddha said is inevitable in this life), we must also deny death. And to deny death, we must deny life.

Why should it be included in psychotherapy, though? Shouldn’t we want to banish it forever? Why shouldn’t we want to avoid it altogether? What’s in it for us, anyway?

This is the answer I came up with: By being present for suffering, we become present for the whole of life, for the wholeness of another person. And the reward is nothing less than the ability to love-and be loved-fully. We suffer because we love and want to continue loving. It is a poignant irony, I think. In our attempt to avoid suffering, we cut ourselves off from the one thing that can mitigate it: each other.

Judith Acosta, LISW, is a licensed psychotherapist, crisis counselor and classical homeopath in private practice in New Mexico. She is the co-author of The Worst Is Over: What To Say When Every Moment Counts, hailed as the “bible of crisis communications” and Verbal First Aid (Penguin, 2010), the new book on therapeutic communication with children. She lectures around the country on Verbal First Aid, trauma, stress, and animal-assisted therapy. She may be reached at her website: http://www.wordsaremedicine.com, where she has an interactive blog.

Millions of women in their 30s, 40s, and beyond are raptly following the romantic escapades of 18-year-old Bella in the teenage romance series known as Twilight. What, we may wonder, is the emotional yearning that drives them?

Feminists loathe the fact that Freud described many of his female patients as suffering from hysteria. Though I consider myself a feminist, I’ll take the risk of saying I think hysteria aptly explains grown-up women’s frenzy over Twilight. Recently I’ve been asked if the Twilight phenomenon bears any relation to The Cinderella Complex. In that book, published in the eighties, I documented women’s psychological fear of independence-their deep-seated wish to be saved. Feminists at the time took issue with my theory, and yet here we are, a quarter of a century later, with something akin to mass hysteria reflecting women’s fear that without the love of a powerful man their lives will be meaningless. Considering the enormous gains women have made, both professionally and financially, how could romantic illusion continue to be so powerful?

As a psychoanalyst I’ve begun thinking clinically about Twilight Twitter. One aspect of women’s identification with young Bella, I believe, is her self-abnegation. No sooner does Edward show an interest in Bella than she shrinks back. “I couldn’t imagine anything about me that could be in any way interesting,” she says.

“I know exactly how she feels,” accomplished women tell me. And yet Bella’s is the plaint of a girl with few interests and curiosities about life, much less herself. In spite of herself, she gets the boy (or, in this case, the vampire). Women find doubting Bella’s romantic success reassuring. Also, oddly, they’re compelled by the idea of her ungratified sexuality. (I can imagine Freud in his grave stroking his beard and saying, “I told you so”. Repressed sexuality, to his way of thinking, lay at the root of women’s hysteria.)

A core issue for hysterics, as psychoanalysts understand the phenomenon today, is the damaging experience of never having been taken seriously. It causes such individuals to be without an anchor, feeling “virtually weightless and floating, attracted here, repelled there, captivated first by this and then by that,” as the noted psychoanalyst, David Shapiro, wrote. Little seems rooted in deep interest or purpose. The resulting sense of insubstantiality can leave those suffering from hysteria vulnerable to the influence of others. Shapiro described it, way back in the 60s, as a “Prince-Charming-will-come-and-everything-will be- all-right view of life.”

Anyone who doubts that many women still think this way this has only to check out the OMG sensibility flooding blogs and chat rooms. OMG, Edward is too beautiful, too fabulously strong, even “gentlemanly”. Bella is so lucky to have snared him; now, Cinderella-like, the poor girl can look forward to a lifetime of happiness. Never mind the danger implicit in dashing Edward’s creepily long eye teeth, he is the prince.

When working in therapy with women who are preoccupied by adolescent dreams of romance, my hope is to spark in them a curiosity about themselves-to get them to begin wondering if there mightn’t be some powerful thoughts and feelings of their own lying beneath the surface brush fires that distract them. Eventually, if things go well, they come to experience themselves as substantial, interesting, and beautiful, and are no longer inclined to gravitate toward media images of male power.

If there’s a main reason for women’s preoccupation with Twilight’s young Bella, I believe it’s this: society still doesn’t take women seriously. As a result, many women don’t take themselves seriously.

The cultural conditioning of girls persists. Think of the madness surrounding “princess parties” if you want evidence that romantic notions continue to be foist on them. It’s Barbie reincarnate, only the princess is if anything more ephemeral, weightless, even less aware of her own substance.

In the seventies we worried about Barbie’s influence on our daughters and tried to diminish her power over them. Today’s mothers actually love the princess. They spend millions so their daughters can flit about in miniature gowns and tiaras looking and acting like one.

My concern is that as long as society keeps insisting on a de-fanged image of femininity, girls will continue finding it hard to connect to their own core and will grow up enthralled by “harmless” stories of romantic obsession.

In placing so much attention on romance, women only feed the fantasy that they need some idealized Other to make the world go ’round. In the end, they are left yearning, the glass slipper of adult love having utterly eluded them.

NY psychotherapist Colette Dowling, LCSW, has a private practice in the Chelsea neighborhood of New York Ciety. She can be reached at 718-594-0201, or at dowlingcolette@earthlink.net.

Colette Dowling, LCSW, is a psychoatherapist and an internationally renowned writer and lecturer. She has written eight books and is best known for uncovering women’s psychological conflicts with independence in her best-selling The Cinderella Complex. Other books she has written are “You Mean I Don’t Have to Feel This Way?” (the first book for the lay reader about the the biological underpinnings of depression, anxiety and addiction), Red Hot Mamas (about women’s new lives after 50), and The Frailty Myth, about the psychological effect on women of having been historically discouraged from developing the full strength of their bodies.

Colette is a graduate of The Smith College School for Social Work and received a cetificate in psychoanalysis from The Institute for Contemporary Psychotherapy, in New York. She has a private psychotherapy practice in New York City. Those interested in a consultation can reach her at dowlingcolette@earthlink.net.

For more articles on women’s mental health visit Colette’s website: http://womens-wellbeing-and-mental-health.com/new-york-psychotherapist.html.

Confused, anxious, mixed, and obsessed are often expressions of those who feel that they need sex as often as possible. Sexual addiction is a disorder characterized by compulsive sexual thoughts and acts. Like all addictions, its negative impact on the addict and on family members increases as the disorder progresses. Over time, the addict usually has to intensify the addictive behavior to achieve the same results.

For some sex addicts, their behavior remains in the realm of compulsive masturbation or the extensive use of pornography or phone or computer sex services. However, addiction can involve illegal activities such as exhibitionism, voyeurism, obscene phone calls, child molestation or rape. It is less often than likely that the disorder progresses beyond legal activities, but when coupled with other issues, an addict can go beyond the legal boundaries.

The DSM IV for Psychiatric Disorders, describes sex addiction as “distress about a pattern of repeated sexual relationships involving a succession of lovers who are experienced by the individual only as things to be used.” According to the manual, “compulsive searching for multiple partners, compulsive fixation on an unattainable partner, compulsive masturbation, compulsive love relationships and compulsive sexuality in a relationship” is a constant in the addict’s life.

The above description is the psychological description of a sex addict. How one becomes a sex addict isn’t so easy to understand. Usually, there is a void that needs to be filled. Loss of a parent, difficulties in socializing, wrong or little proper information regarding sex, or some other stress induced situation where sex creates an outlet to cope with the matter. And this is where the physiology of sex addiction plays a role.

The release felt from ejaculation produces endorphines and enkephlines, which are chemicals released that produce a relaxed and satisfied feeling. This “release” is similar to what an alcohol or drug addict feels. Their issues become numb and the feeling of “coping” with the problem is experienced. Herein lies the physiological result of the addiction. Even more, the physiological aspect reinforces the psychological issue to the point that it becomes a vicious cycle.

The problem, as with every addiction, is that the “coping” is merely a deferral of the problem. The underlying issue is never addressed. Until someone is willing to heal the underlying matters, the addiction will continue. Healing doesn’t happen overnight and requires intensive therapy treatment and insight by the addict. However, it isn’t impossible to control and create a healthy outlook that resolves pains of the past and present in order to create a future that promotes healthy sexual experiences and relationships.

Dr. Christy Wise is the CEO of San Diego Family Services and a licensed clinical psychologist. To find out more, please visit http://www.sdfamilyservices.com She is also a national speaker on relationship conflict resolution and sex therapy.

Dr. Wise has been practicing for over ten years. She has brought comfort and understanding to issues surrounding divorce, children, teens, relationships, conflict resolution, sexuality, anxiety, depression, psychological testing and many other diagnostic categories and issues. Dr. Wise is also a certified child custody evaluator and meets the requirements of California Rules of Court: Rule 5.225, 5.230 and Domestic Violence updates. She is qualified by her knowledge, skill, experience, training and education. She is driven by her commitment to positively impact the lives of individuals in a safe and effective environment.

Follow me on twitter: http://www.twitter.com/drchristywise

Cognitive Behavioural Therapy or CBT is a psychotherapeutic approach used by therapists to help to promote positive change in people by addressing their thought patterns, feelings and behavioural issues. Difficulties with irrational thinking, dysfunctional thoughts and faulty learning are identified and then treated using CBT. Therapy can be conducted with individuals, groups or families and the goals of CBT are to restructure one’s thoughts, perceptions and responses which facilitate changes in behaviours.

The earliest form of CBT was developed by an American Psychologist, Albert Ellis (1913-2007) in 1955, naming his approach Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy (REBT). Ellis (right) is looked on as ‘the grandfather of cognitive behavioural therapies’ Ellis credits Alfred Korzybski (who developed the theory of general semantics, which in turn influenced NLP) and his book ‘Science and Sanity’ for starting him on the path of founding REBT.

In the 1960s an American Psychiatrist, Aaron T Beck, (below) developed another CBT approach called ‘cognitive therapy’ which was originally developed for depression but rapidly became a favourite model to study because of the positive results it achieved. CBT therapists believe that clinical depression is typically associated with negatively biased thinking and irrational thoughts. CBT is now used to provide treatment in all psychiatric disorders and also increases medication compliance, resulting in a better outcome in mental illness. A major aid in CBT is the ABC technique of irrational beliefs, the three steps are:

A is the Activating event, the event that leads to a negative thought.

B is the Beliefs, the client’s belief around the event.

C is the Consequence, the dysfunctional behaviour that ensued from the thoughts and feelings originating from the event. An example would be: Susan is upset because she got a low mark in her math’s test, the Activating event A is that she failed her test, the Belief, B is that she must have good grades or she is worthless, the Consequence C is that Susan feels depressed. In the above example, the therapist would help Susan identify her irrational beliefs and challenge the negative thoughts based on the evidence from her experience and then reframe it, meaning, to re-interpretate it in a more realistic light. Another very useful aid in CBT is to help a client identify with the ten distorted thinking patterns:

1 All or nothing thinking – seeing things in black or white, if your performance falls short of perfect, you see yourself as a total failure.

2 Overgeneralization – seeing a single negative event as a never ending pattern of defeat.

3 Mental Filter – you pick out a single negative defeat and dwell on it so as your vision of reality becomes darkened.

4 Disqualifying the positive – you dismiss positive experiences by insisting that they ‘don’t count’ maintaining a negative belief.

5 Jumping to conclusions – you make a negative interpretation even though there are no definite facts that convincingly support your conclusion, this includes ‘mind reading’ and ‘fortune telling’ or ‘assuming.

6 Magnification (Catastrophising) minimization – exaggerating things or minimizing things, this is also called the ‘binocular trick’.

7 Emotional reasoning – assuming that your negative emotions reflect the way things really are, ‘I feel it, therefore, it must be true’.

8 Should statements – ’shoulds’, ‘musts’ and ‘oughts’ are offenders.

9 Labeling and mislabeling – instead of describing your error, you attach a negative label to it, ie ‘Im a loser’.

10 Personalisation – you see yourself as the cause of some negative external event which in fact you were not responsible for.

These are just some of the techniques used in CBT, others are, relaxation tecniques, communication skills training, assertiveness training, social skills training and giving the client homework assignments.

In a nutshell, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy aims to help a client to become aware of thought distortions which are causing psychological distress and of behavioural patterns which are reinforcing it, and to correct them.

Thomas Inglis Smith is a qualified counsellor, hypnotherapist, NLP practitioner and life coach specialising in addictions. He also produces audio hypnosis recordings. For a free ‘recession busting’ hypnosis download please visit http://www.selfhypnosisdownloads.co.uk

Recently, a Christian colleague made it clear to me that he found the use of hypnosis at the very least questionable and at the very worst “dark.” He asked me to refrain from using it in my psychotherapy work with my contract patients in the agency he founded. For lack of time, I assured him that I would honor his wishes, but quickly pointed out to him that the use of hypnosis (whether it was formal trance or Verbal First Aid, which is the use of words to facilitate healing in acute situations, such as accidents or shock) was no different than the use of a knife. In the hands of a good surgeon, it could be a life-saver. In the hands of a madman, it would be dark indeed.

Afterwards, it became clear to me that his understanding of hypnosis and mine were quite different. And any good debate must begin with a clarification of terms. Too many reasonable discussions deteriorate into pointless argument because no one fully defines himself.

What do we mean then by trance and hypnosis? More specifically, what do Christians who fear hypnosis mean by it and what do ethical clinicians mean by it? For our purposes today, we will leave the madmen out of it.

The Christian Definitions or Concerns:

1. “Mesmerism”

It is very important to address this because what Christians fear about hypnosis is something rather fearful: deliberation manipulation, external mind control, or spell-casting that leaves a person open to spiritual corruption. They form their impressions of the technique from what they have read in popular media (including the early reports on “Mesmerism,” which was presented as a demonic seduction of young women by irresistible and wretched old men), watched on TV, or seen in lounge acts where hypnosis is reduced to having some poor sot play air guitar or bite happily into an onion.

It is not hard to see what makes them uneasy. And, what is worse is that there are people in the world who use hypnotic trance unethically. They may not be madmen, but they should not be calling themselves healers or professionals by any means.

In fact, the worst of these “trance inducers” have nothing to do with lounge acts or private practices. There are at least two times a day when most people are in the deepest, most vulnerable and suggestible trances they are ever in: When they are driving in their cars and when they are at home watching television. And the messages they receive in those states-usually corporate advertising-are what they are unconsciously absorbing.

2. Spiritual Bankruptcy

In Christianity’s beginnings, as in early Judaism, sickness (or insanity) was seen as a function of sin or possession. And the ONLY thing that could cure sin was God and our faith in Him. Anything that interfered with that relationship and dependence on God was prohibited. In those days, that interference usually took the shape of idolatry and pagan religions.

When seen as “mesmerism” or as a loss of control to an unknown entity (e.g., the intentions or spirituality of the hypnotherapist), hypnosis leaves the individual vulnerable to literally who-knows-what-malevolent suggestion, criminal manipulation, and demons.

As Father Russell Radoicich, an Orthodox priest from Butte, Montana, wrote, “Christianity has always called people to live in full awareness, in reality, with nothing having mastery over us except God.” When hypnosis is defined as making one person subject to another (spiritually or mentally), is it any wonder that it is seen as questionable if not downright dangerous?

Hypnosis seen this way-as a quick fix with little depth-can also be considered a crutch or a deterrent to spiritual growth, which is why Father Russell reminds us that “the spiritual work must be done or there is no true rehabilitation. People may lose weight or stop smoking, but the deeper matter has not been addressed.”

Hypnosis, when used as a proper tool in a healing manner, can actually help to facilitate what Fr. Russell is referring to as “the spiritual work” or “the deeper matter.” Again, it is in the hands of the practitioner and the patient as to where the work goes. And in this regard the choice of clinician is important.

3. The Loosening of Moral Inhibition

One of Christianity’s great fears about hypnosis is that it induces a moral laxity and makes the prohibited permissible in the patient’s mind. And, again, when hypnosis is seen this way its prohibition is understandable.

The truth, however, is that clinical hypnosis cannot make anyone do anything that would undermine their moral or ethical resolve.

In an article interview on Hypnosisnetwork, Paul Durbin, a United Methodist minister with a long history of clinical and pastoral service, recalls a famous story about Milton Erickson, M.D., one of the great hypnotherapists and psychiatrists of the last century.

One day Dr. Erickson went to his secretary and told her he was tired and wanted to rest. If anyone called, he told her, she was to say that he was out of the office. She agreed to do this for him. Some time later he put her in a hypnotic trance. He then made the same request-to tell people he was out of the office when he was in fact taking a break. While still in a formally induced trance, she refused him. “Why?” he wanted to know.

“Because,” she said, “it would be a lie.”

Ironically, in hypnosis she had a stronger moral resolve than in her normal waking state.

Hypnosis is not “brainwashing,” as Durbin points out. Brainwashing can be accomplished at any time, with or without formal trance simply by the constant repetition of suggestion. In our culture we call this advertising and media bombardment.

Let us now take a look at how responsible clinicians see hypnosis and how it can be helpful and safe for Christians to utilize it in their own healing process–whether that’s from a back injury, a surgical procedure, or a painful divorce.

The Clinical Definitions:

1. Trance As An Ordinary State of Consciousness

Perhaps the most important definition from the clinical point of view is that hypnosis only utilizes a state of consciousness that is already natural and normal. Trance is not something that is artificially induced in a person. It is not something the hypnotherapist “does” to the patient. It is simply a state of awareness in which we are more focused on an internal process (breathing, thoughts, heartbeat) and most importantly it is something all of us move in and out of all day.

Trance is normal rather than exceptional. What a good clinician will do is utilize that ordinary ability to shift awareness so that pain can be relieved, psychological blockages removed (e.g., fixations on traumatic events), and healing can be facilitated in a variety of ways.

This normal shift of awareness is even more common and spontaneous when we are frightened, hurt, or ill, which is why Verbal First Aid works so well to help stop bleeding, reduce an inflammatory response, and lower blood pressure. We can see it even more dramatically when it is used with children who enter fairly easily and frequently into “trance.”

2. Hypnosis is a Tool. Healing is Spiritual.

Healing is not dependent on one technique. A good healer or responsible clinician has more than one tool in her tool kit. Hypnosis may be one of them, but it is almost never the only one.

Hypnosis, when seen this way, as just another tool, becomes less threatening. Most clinicians acknowledge that the deepest healing is often spiritual in nature and that they are facilitators, not magicians.

Pope Pius addressed the concerns of Catholics regarding hypnosis in childbirth and stated that when used by a health care professional who was properly trained, treatment was permitted.

He also cautioned us that:

· Hypnosis was a serious issue and that it should not be toyed with;

· Practitioners should be guided by the same moral principles (Judeo-Christian ones) in their use of hypnosis as with anything else;

· The rules of good medicine must apply as much to hypnosis as to any other technique.

The truth is that no one other than God knows how healing actually occurs. We can suture one piece of skin to another, but how it knits together remains an ineffable mystery.

How Verbal First Aid Works in Alliance with Faith and the Faithful

If the definitions of trance as clinicians use it are accurate (and I believe they are) and the dangers are real as Christians see them (and I believe they certainly can be), how can the healing use of imagery work together with the faithful so that as Jesus said in John 10:10, “I am come that they may have life and have it more abundantly.”

In the beginning was the word.

That words are powerful is a familiar concept to those who read the Bible. According to many biblical scholars, the first sin was not pride, was not disobedience, was not sex. It was gossip-the misuse of words. And it is a most serious act with terribly dire consequences. The serpent whispers to Eve: “You shall not surely die.” He lied. He misled her and all of humanity, for with those words he surely brought us death.

And the only sin for which the Lord will not find us guiltless is using His name in vain.

Words have a prominent position in the Bible from the third sentence: And GOD SAID LET THERE BE LIGHT. He did not create with His “hands” or “eyes”. The “word” is used throughout to mean the “truth.” He spoke-”By the word of the Lord were the heavens made (Ps. 33).” To speak is to WILL into existence. What we say and how we say it is a co-creative act. What we say hangs somewhere between heaven and earth.

Words matter. The mystics have always known this. Only now is science catching up.

Why? Because they create images in the mind of the person to whom we are speaking. Those images and the thoughts that flow with them generate cascades of chemistry that dictate not only how we feel emotionally, but how fast or slow our hearts beat, how high our blood pressure goes, how profoundly we feel the pain of an injury, even the way our livers function.

We all use words all the time. And they have the power to help or to harm. This is already happening–on the streets, in our classrooms, on our cell phones, in our cars. What we say–and what we hear–changes the way we live and heal at the most fundamental levels. Isn’t it our obligation to make what we say as healing as possible? That’s what Verbal First Aid does–gives us the tools to be healing with our words.

Hypnosis is no different than a sermon, a lecture, a television show or a good book. It is the use of words to move us. When used in the right way with a proper intention, those words can help us heal.

Judith Acosta, LISW, is a licensed psychotherapist, crisis counselor and classical homeopath in private practice in New Mexico. She is the co-author of The Worst Is Over: What To Say When Every Moment Counts, hailed as the “bible of crisis communications.” She lectures around the country on Verbal First Aid, trauma, stress, and animal-assisted therapy. She may be reached at her website: http://www.wordsaremedicine.com/verbal-first-aid.