Archive for the ‘Criminal Psychology Articles’ Category

What Determines Our Behaviour – Genes Or Environment?

Wednesday, March 10th, 2010

Life is like a game of cards. The hand that is dealt you represents determinism; the way you play it is free will. – Jawaharlal Nehru, former Prime Minister of India.

Much has been written and debated about what determines the behaviour of a person, genes or environment? Are our genes responsible for what we do in our day to day life? Or does environment play a dominant role in shaping our behaviour? This “nature – nurture” theory is a perennial topic of discussion.

The basic unit of heredity in an organism is its gene. Genes are responsible for passing genetic traits to the next generation. The coding sequence of genes decides what the gene does for construction and maintenance of an organism’s cells while the non- coding sequence decides when the gene is active.

The Nature Theory

Scientists of Nature Theory think that people behave as they do because of their genetic predisposition. Physical qualities like eye, hair, or skin color, body structure, diseases and characteristics like interest, personality, temperament and sexual habits are also encoded in the genes. Human behavior is less controlled by the environment of free will but more by the genes they carry. Whatever incidents occur and traits that are practiced generation after generation get imprinted on the genes and are passed on to some extent to the next generation.

The Nurture Theory

Some scientists conclude that genetic tendencies do exist, but they ultimately don’t matter because the environmental factors and their upbringing that determine people’s behaviour. A gene may increase the inclination towards a particular behaviour but it does not make people do things unless a favourable environment is provided. If an environment resisting of their genetic tendencies is provided to people, they are most likely to behave according to their upbringing.

Nature or Nurture?

Issues like criminal behavior, infidelity, sexual preferences have been ascribed by Nature theorists to genes.

“We are survival machines,” Richard Dawkins writes in The Selfish Gene, “robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.” And “… genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperms or eggs..”

If we believe this, and people are no longer held accountable for their actions, how will society be possible? On the other hand can we justify criminal behavior by simply saying that increasing summer heat or solar flare leads to increasing levels of assaults and rapes, as some psychologists claim?

It is believed that as we go higher orders in species like mammals that there is a smaller role of instincts and better environmental and behavioural adaptability in the constant process of survival. Human beings have the least instincts. We have instead a great influence of our surroundings and environment substantially determines our behavior.

A study at the University of Minnesota of behaviours of identical twins reared in different homes claims that approximately seventy percent of the variation in IQ is due to genes. Others believe that isolation of twins could never be complete as they would have some social or cultural commonality and communication in their environment in this world fast becoming socially and culturally uniform.

There is increasing evidence of the interactions between nature and nurture. Genes by themselves do not ensure that a particular trait will prevail. Genes are said to be switched on or off by environmental interaction with our brain which is why yoga and meditation are said to be able to control diseases and even control or reverse some physical processes in the body.

We cannot, with the present evidence before us, conclude one way or the other on the nature vs. nurture debate. We have to try to understand the interactions between the two. There are complex relationships among genes, proteins, hormones, food, and our experiences and only further research in future will reveal the truth.

In the context of the human search for development and success, we cannot rest our future on the thesis that genes have a major role to play and our efforts will contribute little. Life coaches and business coaches who are more in favor of the nurture theory believe that the events that the individual passes through in his life time shape his perceptions, lifestyle, personality and habits. Their stand is that if freewill and strong determination is exercised, people are sure to control their genes and nurture their personality to happiness, self confidence and success.

All the best,

Natalie Dee

London Life Coach and Business Coach

Natalie Dee is a specialist in life coaching and business coaching with clients throughout the UK and worldwide. To find out more, visit http://www.natalie-dee.com

Coaching promotes confidence, fulfillment and success in peoples’ lives. Life coaching and business coaching creates change in communication skills and self confidence.

In her business capacity, Natalie offers a range of coaching services including one-to-one coaching and professional workshops.

Natalie Dee is also the co-author of an ebook on self confidence, for more details visit her website (as above).

Myers Briggs Personality Type and Political Affiliation

Monday, February 8th, 2010

We’ve all come across people who just seem incapable of modifying their perspective based on new data being presented. Most of us still mouth the words that additional education (or indoctrination/propaganda as is often the case) is what is needed since surely this person will turn around if his/her consciousness is sufficiently expanded with additional data backing your perspective. However, all too often deep inside we know that some people are “hopeless”. This conclusion concerning failure of propaganda is reached from all over the political, cultural, and religious spectrum at one point or another. It thus becomes fashionable to outright dismiss “inconvertible” individuals and opposing zealots (on political and religious fringes of any given population) as nuts and crazies.

Personality theory in psychology allows us to better categorize individuals in society without resorting to name calling. Myers-Briggs typology in particular offers a better construct (compared to useless terms like conservative and liberal for example) to predict how an individual will act politically and socially. Myers-Briggs research combined with biology and brain scan techniques also offers us hints at understanding the underlining anatomical basis that predisposes a person to be either a disagreeable radical or a gentle follower.

There’s been little relative popular attempts to scientifically explain why the bulk of the population is always a warzone between the extreme fringes. It’s just assumed that it will always be this way just like there will always be criminals and extremely altruistic self-sacrificing givers. This assumption seems reasonable and obvious but gives rise to two other creeping and unsettling assumptions:

1) The human population is relatively fixed along a bell curve type continuum. Perhaps this is better visually represented by a sphere with a number of spikes extending from it. The moderate population is the bulk of the sphere and the zealous “radical” factions (whose opinions differ dramatically from the statistical average) are the spikes extending from the sphere’s surface (as well as into the interior to some degree which would represent silent sympathizers). It is irrelevant to label the spikes as extreme left, right, etc. All that is important is that a relatively fixed minority of the population (lets say 10-20% range) will be:

a) prone to modes of thought that are tangibly different from majority’s

b) prone to action and lifestyle based on these thoughts

Authors like Friedrich Hayek for instance, observed that in 1920s Germany roughly a million workers swung their support between communists and Nazis based on who was winning. It was noted that the two seemingly opposing ideological parties clashed with one another the most because they were very often competing for recruits in the same psychological pool of young people. Considering how many overexcited Americans called both Bush and Obama the new “Hitler” in recent years, we can easily imagine how an aggressive drooling at the mouth anti-war protestor from a big city could have been an equally excitable protester at a teabag rally if only he was born in a small town and into a different culture.

2) Since the ratio of intensely active people (prone to being perceived by population at large as “wingnuts”or criminals or radicals or genuinely informed and committed activists, etc) to more relaxed apathetic majority seems to be roughly fixed across all societies and globally as a whole, the explanatory basis for such a dynamic can only be biological. Just like there exist (and can further be bred) aggressive dogs and peaceful friendly dogs, there exist aggressive people, natural Buddhist-esque peaceful people, etc. A person who is an aggressive pit bull equivalent (and who wants to impose his views of the world onto others the most) would differ in his relatively extreme ideology depending on what part of the world he was socialized in. Psychiatry has shown us that people are born with different ratios of neurotransmitter production and quantitative as well as qualitative differences in the types of chemicals that affect their mood and cognition. We now understand that people differ a lot more in terms of brain architecture than they differ in terms of things like body type, skin color, fast twitch/slow twitch muscle ratio, etc.

The reason why these assumptions are unsettling is not because there is a degree of fatalism involved (“he will be a radical of one stripe or another no matter what” or “he will be socially lazy, shallow, apathetic, and uninvolved no matter what). Obviously with modern socialization methods and pharmaceutical modification (with psychological genetic and cybernetic modification to follow in near future), an individual can be shaped more than ever before by society and by himself. The assumptions are unsettling because if the broad direction of our views, opinions, and political/cultural/religious affiliations are largely physiologically determined at birth, then societal progress becomes enormously more difficult. Societal progress can be defined here as one zealot faction (that is seen by majority as the most “correct” in its socioeconomic policy perspectives and formulations of what humans should do next) dragging everybody else along behind it as has always occurred throughout history.

Obviously people will disagree on what constitutes progress (some actually thought arrival of Reagan was progress) but if majority of people are physiologically predisposed towards the status quo, progress of any sort becomes a lot harder in a democratic society. In the past, one intense dedicated fringe of the aristocratic elites dragged the other nobility along behind it (since majority of nobility would also have a soft apathetic bulk) and thus dragged the rest of the population behind it as well. We also had scenarios of power vacuum developing and one intense fringe political faction overpowering the others (as in the case of Bolshevik and French revolutions) and filling the leadership position to then drag the rest of the serfs behind it.

In today’s democratic structure however, protection of the status quo is a lot more preserved since the moderate bulk of the population has a political voice and thus a way to provide the ruling elites with legitimacy. The moderate bulk of the elites now also has ever more sophisticated consent and perception manufacturing methods to influence the newfound voice of the majority. For a small number of dedicated activists, pushing society along towards desired version of progress against the forces of social inertia is now harder than ever. The powerful activists now need to sway both the fellow elites and the people simultaneously.

Let’s finally get to the Myers-Briggs part of the article to see what we are now dealing with.

The most widely used way to get a glimpse of people’s underlining neural physiology has been the Myers-Briggs psychological questionnaire (one of the better versions found online for free can be found here). Over the past few decades, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has been utilized to collect enormous amounts of statistical data on personality types found within the human population. The statistical type breakdown (I am using a combination of 3 different sources on the %. Don’t mind the catchy positive nicknames each type and group cluster has been given. What matters here is the number within a population.) so far has been as follows,

Protectors (SJ)

ESTJ – Overseer, supervisor = 11.8%
ESFJ – Supporter, provider = 11.7%
ISTJ – Examiner, inspector = 9.8%
ISFJ – Defender, protector = 9.9%
All SJs = 43.2%

Creators (SP)

ESTP – Persuader, promoter = 8.4%
ESFP – Entertainer, performer = 10.3%
ISTP – Craftsman, mechanic = 6.4%
ISFP – Artist, composer = 7.9%
All SPs = 33%

Intellectuals (NT)

ENTJ – Chief, fieldmarshal = 3.2%
ENTP – Originator, inventor = 3.7%
INTJ – Strategist, mastermind = 1.5%
INTP – Engineer, architect = 2.2%
All NTs = 10.6%

Visionaries (NF)

ENFJ – Mentor, teacher = 3.4%
ENFP – Advocate, idealist = 4.2%
INFJ – Confidant, empath = 1.2%
INFP – Dreamer, healer = 2.4%
All NFs = 11.2%

Each of the personality types (the well defined strong ones at least who haven’t self reported to be a mutt of 2 or more different personalities) can be seen as a specific brain type. As mentioned above, the physiological neural difference between 2 people of vastly dissimilar brain types is a lot more significant than how a person looks on the outside. That is because the brain type determines a mental and emotional predisposition of a person for the rest of his life. People classified as “bipolar” or “anti-social/sociopathic” for instance, have neural structures that will make them lean towards some things more than others during their entire lives.

We can see from the statistical breakdown that SJ (left-brained people with parietal lobe strength) predominate in the overall population. The second biggest group are the SP (right-brained with parietal lobe strength). Together they are almost 80% of the population. The SJs tend to be conservative, authoritarian in outlook, conventional, focused on concrete “what is”, and protective of the general society. They don’t rock the boat too much and defer to tradition. The SPs tend to be fun loving, crafty, entertaining, and have uncanny ability to focus on “what is” (with their parietal lobe) in order to fix and modify it.

If you look at the cute nicknames given to different brain types, you can see that the human herd pretty much needs all of them if it is to evolve and survive. Some types are needed more than others in the great scheme of things. The SJ and SP groups for example are conveniently numerous. SJ population provides a great amount of soldiers, policemen, social workers, self sacrificing charity givers, accountants, and status quo protectors. In other words they keep the herd safe even if it means stagnating the herd through using their positions in the executive to slow down rapid change. SP group provides us with artisans who improve quality of life for the herd through provision of entertainers, artists, dancers, singers, and resourceful improvising mechanics. SPs can be said to exist to entertain SJs and keep them on their toes by having more fun than them.

It’s easy to see how SJs lean republican and SPs lean democrat overall. The jokes that democrats have better sex lives than republicans begin to acquire an element of truth (considering the different approach left and right sides of the brain take in deciding on how to deal with the here and now). However, the two large groups are united by their concern with all things as they are in the now. That makes the two groups friendly and status quo leaning by default. An ESTJ born in Brooklyn may identify as a traditionalist democrat whereas an ESTJ born in West Virginia may identify as a traditionalist republican, but both are more likely to seek similar professions and get along if they hang out together. Brain type identification provides a lot more material to predict a person’s behavior and views on the world than simple political identification.

The overall theme emerges that people with neural computers that predispose them to either protect the status quo or be apathetic about it (since they are busy pursuing hedonistic adventures) are the supermajority that are not as interested in “what can be” (as the less numerous NP and NJ groups tend to be). A point must be made here that not one group is more important than another and that even their numerical breakdowns seem amazingly appropriate. It would be turbulent for the herd to have for example, more ENTJs/INTJs than ISTJs/ESTJs since the problem with authority that NJs have (due to their desire to be the authority themselves) would create unsustainable infighting and not allow enough people who follow orders. Each brain type has a very key social niche and function and over thousands of years there evolved an intricate genetic balance and ratio. There are of course also multitudes of physiological “mutts” who are a hybrid of all and can’t be “pigeonholed” (the most common complaint brought against psychological typology in general).

Interestingly enough, the Hindus have spent thousands of years evolving classification of human beings into 4 broad psychological varnas or classes. Each was considered as important as the other (all parts of the same body) with their own particular temperaments and duties.

Some brain types are literally made to create new theoretical constructs on how society should be organized and which steps it should take next (INTPs, ENTPs,). When balanced by the emotional consideration and input of INFPs and ENFPs (since strong T theorists are prone to being too rigidly rational and thus not take into consideration the emotional impact of their constructs) new paths for society can be developed that would be acceptable to SJs and SPs combined. However, as explained above, these people will always be outvoted and marginalized by politicians who mobilize the other more numerous groups. “Think of the children!” is a call to arms for ESFJs and ISFJs for instance whereas being tough on crime, national strength, and defeating foreign enemies is the bread and butter of ESTJs and ISTJs.

This dynamic reinforces the need for proportional representation in our system of governance. Proportional representation is practiced in most European Union countries to great effect. This way each brain type cluster can get a political party of their own. The marginalized 20% of the population can get representation and even serve as coalition kingmakers. New voices can be heard in the discourse. Today the 20% of population has to either join the big parties they don’t like and “radicalize” them (seen by the tail wagging the dog phenomenon of militants dominating today’s Republican party and driving moderates out of it) or abstain from the process thus depriving society of valuable input. In proportional representation, each batch of brain types seen as “radicals” can find a party to call home and really support. They would also have more political representation to vent out their frustration and to institutionalize their presence and views. Citizens can then pick and choose which vision of progress to support and which to leave behind.

Myers-Briggs Personality Pluralism

Friday, February 5th, 2010

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

What Will Psychology Become in the 21st Century

Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010

Psychology has been around as a formal science for over 100 years. But it hasn’t escaped its original focus. Born in the laboratories of medicine, it has always been defined as the science of psychopathology, meaning what’s wrong with us. Perceived in this way, psychology has never been a major contributor to a general definition of human nature; we think about ourselves psychologically only when something’s gone amiss.

Until about 100 years ago it was most common to think of ourselves as creatures of God; a God Who gave us a small but very powerful piece of Himself – His Spirit. We still call this piece our “soul”, meaning the spiritual core of us. Though we don’t easily think of ourselves as possessing – being in charge – of the spiritual entity from which it derives. We usually think of it as something that belongs to some universal Presence or process – which we must obey to become totally and safely in tune. Tyranny survived for centuries basing itself upon this fearful belief.

Enter psychology, the secularizing science. What it’s doing subtly, which is not yet fully recognized by us, is one, to claim the soul as belonging to humans; and two, to discard the notion of “psychopathology”. This process emancipates psychological science from the laboratories of medicine and its emphasis upon illness. Though it still presumes to be the parent of psychology, medicine itself lacks a unified theory of how the body functions as an ecosystem. Best illustration: drugs, which produce almost as many problems as they solve. Medicine has potential pieces of this theory, but obviously not the whole. Thus this parent is fundamentally unqualified to define this new psychological aspect of our nature. It hasn’t even got its own understanding in order.

In recent times the pathological aspect of psychology is being eliminated in an effort to render everything user-friendly, by discarding – disowning – the negative aspects of human nature. The usual method is to say everything is normal. Though we don’t entirely believe it because we still suffer. This strategy of erasing the bad parts of the equation by will power is too oversimplified, producing the usual solution to this contradictory dilemma: to make spirituality a function of the brain, as if that organ is the seat of the human soul. Our preference has become – fix, or medicate the brain and the problem is solved. Only a mob could have produced such highly oversimplified thinking.

We have always tried to explain ourselves most fundamentally as a physical entity, in which all of our parts can be traced to some aspect of the body. What we avoid imagining most of all is that we might be what religion still insists upon for many – an otherworldly creature with a core nature that isn’t corporeal or tangible, but is instead what might legitimately be regarded as a transcendental spirit. Though the human spirit that will evolve in the new century will belong not to God, but entirely to us. Transcendental will not mean surviving death and rising into heaven. It will mean instead existing only in this life, but in the process rising above physical limitations to achieve a new secular dimension of human nature – our transcendental spirit – that is traditionally understood as a part of religion belonging to God.

Indeed we are the only creature on this planet who transcends its physical life beyond a primitive self-awareness, by being consciously aware of itself and so much more on many different levels; thus able to produce all of our electronic marvels. It’s that spiritual life of the mind, heart, imagination, intuition, etc., referring here to our real soul – the human psyche – with all of its marvelous parts that enable us to understand, and to make use of, so much of what is happening around us.

But there is a huge hurdle for us to circumvent before we achieve this goal. It is our passion for social experience founded upon our firm belief that two or more people together is better than one. When precisely the opposite is true. The genius of the human species is our individuality. All new original things come from one person at a time. Groups of any size only imitate that wisdom – but only after reducing it to its lowest common denominator. Groups dilute everything they touch. It’s both their virtue – giving us respite – and their principle vice – by reducing our genius to the dumb wisdom of a mob.

Unlike traditional religion, which partakes of the spiritual as a social event, being individually inventive leaves us fearfully alone with this intangible spiritual power. This is probably why we have always perceived human understanding and its spiritual power to come from the group. When the truth is that the power of the human psyche comes entirely from being individual, though in our fear we like to pretend that it originates in groups of all kinds, cultural, workplace, etc… so we don’t have to experience being alone with it.

When there is nothing that happens in our collective experience that isn’t simply an imitation of what we already know as individuals. That group-celebration can be encouraging, supportive and fun. Though in our terror at being so separate and alone as spiritual individuals, we desperately treat the social group as something much more powerful – a parental entity capable of guiding us to better places – the “moral majority”. When this entity is really a headless monster. We pretend to give it a head by providing it leadership; but that’s mostly pretense no matter how clever that person may be. The problem is that groups don’t think; they act. And leaders don’t change that; yet we treat them as if they, by their thinking efforts, can make groups think and produce change.

Anything new is hatched only in individual minds. Altogether, we treat groups, including, and most particularly corporations, with far too much reverence; and individual people with far too much mistrust and abuse. When groups of all kinds may sometimes respect individuals, at least to some extent, but the next day they will devour them as they have done, for instance in economic depressions (Article: see an aristocracy of the “Rich Create Depressions”), and in war – both of which have happened for centuries.

Groups produce group-talk, in essence all the various forms of social science that define us as a collective entity walking in the same footsteps, having the same motives and needs that can be implemented in the same political rhetoric or acts. In the meantime what’s really going on between the group and the individual is a relationship of mistrust. Groups regard individual differences, and the dissonances they produce as growing pains, as potentially criminal, if for no other reason than simply by being centered-in-self – “selfish” is the usual accusing term.

Psychology is changing the way people are talked about. It is replacing the discussion of people and their problems in the aggregate, as a mob moving through time… with describing people as having internal conflicts that motivate their behaviors. So far these internal conflicts have been perceived pathologically, which strongly implies that contradictions within human character border upon some form of deviance or criminality, politely discussed as “illness”. Instead of being perceived in a larger view as legitimate aspects of the evolution of the human psyche… as our individual souls work out their growing pains – which include such symptoms as hallucination and dissociation (see the article “Is Hallucination Normal” and others). These internal contradictions have more individually personal parts, than they have parts in common with others – for centuries our usual way of talking about each other.

The huge advantage of addressing human problems in the individual form is beyond comprehension. The most obvious boon of this altered way of coping with human suffering is the elimination of violence. It’s true even today that the extent to which people address their emotional experience internally, instead of inflicting it together, socially upon some issue or cause, measures the extent to which violence has already been partly defeated.

Eventually we will realize that studying the self as an ecosystem, which contains both beneficial as well as contradictory parts, is the most important kind of education we will ever undertake or accomplish. This self-learning will no longer have the sting that “illness” attaches to it; thus it will no longer be called “psychotherapy”. Instead it will become the core of all education, funding every other kind of exploration with the wisdom of self-knowledge.

So what will psychology become in the 21st century? It will attempt to define a new concept of human nature that is entirely secular; in which the answers to the problems of the world are to be found inside individual people; defined as contradictions of our individual natures, instead of conflicts with the world at large, whether that be our neighbor, or the country next door. Thereby making war irrelevant to the process of problem solving in human affairs. Lets stop trying to explain our problems with group-talk, and start treating whatever problems we struggle with as belonging intimately to each one of us. We can help each other, but only if we can accept and acknowledge responsibility for our own suffering. This new psychology perceives human dysfunction as an internal event, not an external one. That ancient group-perspective is what has always made us so violence-prone.

My additional works can be seen at this website: http://donfenn.com

Bullying – Observation of the Predator and Prey Mindsets

Tuesday, January 12th, 2010

I was recently doing some research regarding criminal mindset when I stumbled across an article in Psychology Today on bullies. I have seen several news stories over the past few years about children being harassed so much in school that they chose to take their own lives to end the misery. This is terribly heartbreaking. I gained some insight not only into the mindset formation of bully and victim, but interestingly enough, how this behavior gets reinforced over the years and shapes the individuals as adults. Without some kind of intervention, bullies continue to bully into adulthood, and are more likely to engage in antisocial, i.e. criminal behavior. Equally so, victims tend to get victimized over and over again. This dynamic of predator and prey is created fairly early on, and without something to divert their paths, it is a dance that is perpetuated throughout life.

How and when exactly does it begin? Believe it or not, aggression begins at as early as age 2. Think preschool! The child-parent relationship at this tender age is the most important relationship, and the article argues that bullies are made. A parent may be dealing with a particularly difficult child who acts out and is frequently disobedient. If the parent engages in what is called non-contingent parenting, the adult yells at the child with threats of punishment and only follows through at the point at which his or her hostility has reached a critical point. Then the parent coerces the child into compliance with force. Unfortunately, if this behavior becomes a pattern, the use of ineffective and/or intermittent punishment ultimately rewards the child’s defiance. If the parent engages in harsher punishments over time, the child tends to become more and more aggressive. This is a terrible cycle, indeed, and one that can have very bad consequences for many. Other factors play into the formation of bullies, also: not monitoring youth behavior (especially towards other children); children modeling adults’ negative behavior towards others (bullies beget more bullies), children using aggression to demonstrate power or control the environment, and lack of verbal fluency. The last one is really interesting; the better the verbal skills, the better children function in the social environment of their peers.

What does bullying entail? It can include physical or mental abuse. Aggressive youths may begin to control specific peers with physical punishment, but compliance may eventually only require a threatening word, facial expression or gesture. Bullies tend to be physically stronger and in turn, select targets who are weaker and smaller, more sensitive and quiet, and who display a fear of confrontation. In other words, bullies pick on more submissive children. In a large percentage of cases, bullies are themselves the victims of bullying, and lash out due to their own hypersensitivity to confrontation or provocation. If they are emotionally sensitive, they may always be looking for a battle. Some bullying types have a very high threshold for stimulation and are motivated by the reward of arousal; these are usually sociopathic in nature. A sociopath is perpetually bored, has no empathy, and cannot cooperate because he or she cannot relate to others. I am currently reading an interesting book entitled the sociopath next door, by Martha Stout, Ph.D., that will hopefully give me further insight into the psychological aberration of sociopaths, as well. Bullies may use ridicule, and if the bully is a girl (yes, they can be girls), she will use social relationships as a weapon against a target and engage in behavior that isolates the victim from the pack such as social exclusion, spreading nasty rumors, etc. All of this stuff, of course, occurs mostly under the adult radar, at a gathering of peers (like school). The relationship between predator and prey causes a downward spiral for both parties; bully behavior is rewarded and reinforced, and victim behavior causes a child to have less and less self-esteem. Kids usually believe their victimization is their own fault, and bullies believe they have to solve every problem through aggression. The bullied children are often rejected by their peers because their submissive behavior is “unsettling” to other children. The entire peer group gets locked into negative patterns, and without adult intervention, those roles can keep both predator and prey on a very dark path, well into adulthood.

What can be done to prevent bullying? Make no mistake–neither the bully nor the victim is engaged in character-building exercises. Based on several psychological studies (in various countries), some examining kids from an early age all the way into their 30’s, the problems associated with bullying do not just work themselves out as many might believe. Adults have to get involved; this not only benefits the lives of the children, but the lives of everyone they come into contact with as they age. Looking at the very big picture, society at large benefits from adult intervention. So, what exactly can adults do? Here is a list of things to try:

* Teaching children avoidance of bullies–this is exactly what we teach adults in self-protection regarding predators on the street.
* Helping children with their social skills–facilitating social groups and social opportunities. Both bullies and their victims are often socially isolated.
* Teaching children self-confidence and assertive behavior.
* Helping children improve verbal skills (a “pro-social” skill). Many bullies are lacking in this area.
* Inquiring how peers are treating children. This may take some work, since children may not readily admit to having problems socially.
* Helping children become more adept in activities that are valued by their peers, including martial arts!
* Controlling consumption of violent programming. This is a big issue–Lt. Col. Dave Grossman talks a lot about the problems associated with violent video games and other forms of entertainment.
* Instilling empathy in children.
* Staying involved in children’s lives, but without being so over-protective that it hinders their ability to deal with confrontation.

The criminal mindset begins to crystallize even earlier than I thought. The victim mindset does also! All the more reason we need to be involved in the lives of young people, giving them proper models to shape them into well-functioning adults that respect the rights of others. I also see this article as a great endorsement for the martial arts in helping kids develop confidence, assertiveness, self-respect, and respect for others. Those are the qualities we all need to accomplish our goals in life, right? Instill those things in a child, and you have given them a gift for a lifetime.

References
Marano, Hara Estroff. (1995, Sep). Big. Bad. Bully. Psychology Today, 28(5), 50-57, 62-69, 73-79, 82.

Steven Mosley is Head Coach and co-founder of Combat Hard Fitness & Fighting, LLC. He has over 20 years experience in law enforcement and martial arts. Steve has over 25 years experience teaching firearms and defensive tactics, holds black belts in Chinese Kenpo Karate and Filipino Kali, is a Senior Instructor under the British Combat Association and is an Apprentice Instructor in Filipino Martial Arts & Jun Fan Gung Fu under Guro Dan Inosanto. Within the fitness arena, Steve’s accomplishments include IKFF Military Advisor, USA Weightlifting Coach, Advanced Boxing Fitness Trainer, AKF Lifting Coach, Crossfit Level One Trainer, ISSA Certified Fitness Trainer, certified Battling Ropes Coach and certified Warrior Diet/CFT Level Two Instructor. Visit Steve’s website at http://www.combathard.com or contact him at combathard@gmail.com. Also check out the Combat Hard weblog at http://combathard.wordpress.com.

The Dark Side – Psychology of the Insane

Wednesday, January 6th, 2010

Abstract:

In recent years psychology has tried to uplift the human spirit with lots of popular psychology terms such as, “Positive Psychology” or the numerous books released to tell the masses how to behave to lead a fulfilled successful life from talking about parachutes, ten steps to something, the mired of “how to” titles and much more. Most are nothing but misguided pop psych or a fad of the moment. Can life be as easy as reading the right book and following some basic concepts and everything is going to be OK for you and me? This paper is different, we shall explore the “Dark” side of the human mind – that part that sees disengagement, destruction, vile acts as part of the everyday human psyche that emerges in us all from time to time – that part that finds excitement, glee and pleasure in the dysfunctional part of our existence. How can society reconcile with its dark side? I use the word insane to refer to those in society who oppose the social norm.

Introduction:

First let’s examine how we can identify the “Dark Side” of psychological thought and behaviour. We need a measure, to know, what is normal and what is considered abnormal behaviour. Our first measure is social norms; this means in any society of what is considered normal everyday behaviour given a set of circumstances that confront our perception. For example in Western culture to strike another person violently is considered a criminal act and one that is repulsive to a peaceful society. However we condone violence when the person is given societal permissions such as a soldier in the act of war, a policeman in the act of apprehension of a dangerous criminal, a citizen defending his family from a serious threat from another person. These double standards can be misinterpreted in many ways. The soldier who commits war crimes such as genocide, the policeman who uses violence to intimidate a witness while interviewing them or the citizen who violates another persons rights in order to further their own position in some way.

The second measure is a moral one? How do we as a society decide what is right and wrong, who has the power to decide these rights, do laws follow moral conviction or do they become protection of the weak against the strong or the rich against the poor? Most societies agree that killing another human being is against a moral code – it is simply wrong to kill and should be punished by an act of equal severity, by the society that supports the moral legal stance imposed on the masses by its law-makers. To most societies this has been a religious code of conduct such as the 10 commandments of the Christian faith and other such codes from Buddhism to the Muslim Koran. Faith in divine reward and punishment are reflected in the legal language and laws seen as the bedrock of any civilized nation of people. Having accepted these rules why then do people readily deviate from these morals, laws and religious guidelines that allow us all to live in a peaceful society governed by agreed principals of behaviours that protect the individual from danger, hurt and abuse?

The third area of behaviour is that not set down in law or religious concepts but those everyday sets of behaviour the English would refer to as, “manners” or being “polite”. The conduct or way of acting that conforms to behaviour accepted as that of a superior member of a society who knows how to conduct themselves in the company of others to a set of standards that are seen as the mark of an advanced civilization. These can sometimes be seen in the etiquette of table manners or a man opening a door for a woman and allowing her to pass first, the recognition of man’s duty to protect and defend women. Today in some cultures women’s rights have cast doubt of manners towards woman as sexist and therefore demeaning to a woman’s independence. Never-the-less manners are seen as the mark of being well-bread and in the upper echelons of a society whether they are traditional Englishness or a Japanese tea ceremony.

Having set out societies differing ways of measuring behaviour either through, law, morals or social acceptable norms humans still manage a wide range of dysfunctional behaviour that often impacts on and influences others to the point where the perpetrators of this behaviour see themselves outside the law, moral codes and etiquette of the rest of society. Sometimes through the feeling of guilt we all recognise when we have transgressed those rules that we see as essential to a well ordered civilization. However there are those other people who feel nothing when faced with dealing out violence, destruction and death against others as merely their right to live without those rules and the freedom to live a life that is determined by nothing more than what they wish to own, possess or destroy.

The Dark-Side:

What posses the man who kicks the dog, when he is frustrated by society that pens his existence. What feelings does he release at that moment when the dog screeches and howls in pain and fright? Why does he smile and wish further harm to the dog and enjoy the sight of an animal in pain? On-lookers feel outraged by his behaviour and sympathy for the defenceless dog for which this man has sought to treat cruelly and without remorse. Who is this man? Why he is all of us from time to time. We all lose our sense of psychological calm and rational thoughts as we grapple with life’s unfairness or lack of opportunity. On the other hand – wait – for this man is wealthy, has all his needs fulfilled, yet still feels great delight in kicking and watching the dog suffer at his hands. A sense of power at his ability to inflict pain and the pleasure at feeling superior to other lesser humans whom he sees as incapable of taking what they want and so end up his employees and servants. This superior positional thinking leads to a lack of sympathy or empathy for others as only fools who accept the dominance of his kind as leaders and law-makers.

The above example is too give an insight into a behaviour that breaks our three measures of social norms, law (hurting a defenceless animal) moral (the taboo on senseless behaviour seen as wrong doing) socially acceptable behaviour, (while everyone might lose their temper and kick their dog, most will feel pangs of guilt and remorse). Here however we meet people who feel no guilt, no remorse and see themselves as exempt from laws they do not agree with. In England fox-hunting was a cruel sport mostly carried out by intelligent, professional, wealthy men and women? Yet these same people claimed a right to hunt and destroy a defenceless animal for nothing more than a good time as seeing their hounds rip apart and devour a fox. Even though the majority of English people voted on numerous occasions to ban this sport it took several years of campaigning to get this put into law. Now fox-hunting is an illegal activity however these same people continue to flout the law and hunt under local by-laws that have yet to catch up with national lawmaking. These people know what they are doing is illegal, immoral and against social norms as defined by majority opinion. Yet they claim they are superior parts of society and therefore above the day to day moral concerns of the ordinary masses. The surprising thing is in England these people are members of parliament, police, judges and others who control aspects of society in England such as estate owners (land given often by Royal consent in the past by robbing the rightful land of the poor). In others words the very people who should set an example to society are the same ones flaunting the law and socially acceptable behaviour.

In another example we have to look at the criminal. Criminals are often seen as the rejects of society as they have come from flawed backgrounds, disadvantaged families and poor parental upbringing. Yet in society the largest harm done to the public is often from corporate crime such as pension fund embezzlement, stocks and shares insider trading and theft of assets and wealth by CEO’s and government officials. This so-called white-collar crime is often undetected and the hardest to bring to justice. Everyday criminals are more visual to the public as their crimes cause localised distress and make the media cry for police action and civil authority action. Therefore most laws are about visual crime that is easy to understand and comprehend. Punishment of visual crime is also straight forward and dealt with everyday in our courts and media. How do we distinguish between the two types of criminal – the so-called victimless crime of white collar criminals who see no direct victim or the murderer who during an armed robbery kills and maims those who oppose his will to steal what he wants from society and the distress they leave behind?

So what does psychology have to say about the deviants who do not see their actions as a problem to themselves and feel others who do not take control of their lives as weak and therefore deserve to be victims of those who are smarter, stronger or more powerful? The media often cries about the passive masses that accept the status quo and in the same paper would condemn the local person who took the law into their own hands perhaps to avenge some wrong-doing against them or their families? The first area that psychology expounds the reasons behind this dark behaviour of others is “developmental” that upbringing is at the route of this behaviour, that the dog kicker was not loved or cared for in the correct manner. That during their formative years they were subject to cruelty, sexual abuse or lack of social education. That the same transgressors were victims of bullying at school and therefore need to act-out their own frustration on those in society that are weaker than themselves. The question we have to pose here is why some victims, in fact most, go onto being law-abiding citizens and it is only the few that turn into the monsters who kill and maim for reasons of developmental mistakes? At this point many scientists like to point to a genetic factor in behaviour. This old chestnut has been around for some time now. There is evidence amongst violent criminals that they often possess an extra Y chromosome (men) that gives them a high amount of testosterone leading to violent outbursts towards frustrating situations in which they use terror and fear as the key to getting what they need. However as a percentage of violent criminals this is statistically minute even though in the general prison population this may be higher. All genetic research so far has lead to speculation about genetic factors but with no firm evidence to back up the claims. The most often sited evidence is that from twin studies where twins separated at birth have high incidences of similar behaviour and outcomes. Again as a percentage of twins born and studied this evidence is weak for genetic determinism and high for developmental environments being similar and twins experiencing environments that are so accord that it is more likely to be a surprise if they did turn out differently from each other. So if we remove developmental outcomes, genetic predispositions then what makes some people flaunt socially acceptable behaviour and some who comply to everything society demands of them? This then is the propositional position that makes psychology hard to always see as a positive view or a deterministic way of the world and that in fact maybe it is in fact that normal behaviour amongst humans is to be cruel, deceitful, violent and tendency towards criminal behaviour under a variety of circumstances. Those morals are a luxury of a settled society where everyone is equal both economically and in caste or class.

The Psychology of the Survivalist:

There are those particularly in the USA that see the end of society as a real possibility whether they advocate nuclear annihilation (today more likely bio-warfare) or the breakdown of capitalism leading to social chaos and civil strife. These people are often referred to as survivalists. They store weapons against the uncontrollable hordes that would roam the country in the event of civil breakdown and food for the possibility of shortages caused by economic meltdown. (Looking at 2009 in the USA many survivalists would argue they in fact have a good case). The survivalists believe the have a basic right to defend themselves and their families in the case of societal breakdown and lack of protective laws. On occasions these groups come into conflict with existing legal statutes that become enforced by federal authorities such as the FBI. Therefore the survivalist’s mentality is while on the one hand in conflict with society and in the other seen as a genuine attempt at controlling ones own fate against future disasters. After all insurance companies survive just on that premise alone – and ironically would be the first not to survive an economic breakdown of capitalism as seen by the failure of many banks in 2008/9 around the world. Today the most popular movies at the box office are disaster films, those where flood, sun-flares, bio-warfare, alien invasion and other catastrophes cause the social breakdown of society. The heroes of these movies are always the resourceful survivalists who through violence protect their kin from all-comers. Why do the public find these people as attractive, as hero’s and yet the real survivalists are vilified as public enemies of the status-quo? Judging by the success of these movies ordinary people recognise that the breakdown of society is something that may happen or is if fact inevitable. So they look to these movies as a type of hope for another future that may come about by the demise of their own everyday world.

Psychology as Evolution:

In human history all people started out as survivalists as hunter gatherers roaming the land looking for easy accessible animals for food and warmth. As time goes by we see these societies settle into agro-cultural settlements that create rules, laws, leaders and a moral code. As they develop and grow these settled societies create art, music and religion to compensate for a limited existence within the constrictions of the very society they have formed. From these beginnings land and property become important. The possession of goods and chattels becomes essential to growth. As time goes by these settlements become villages, towns and cities which eventually form countries with boundaries. Survival becomes now the group and not the individual as was human’s natural instincts from the beginning of time. However eventually all these societies fade and crumble away. Some for unknown reasons such as the Mayan and other South American civilisations. Most fail as they grow into empires who dominate the weak with a version of their own laws and religions. However one thing history teaches us all is that societies do disappear for all sorts of reasons. (Greek, Roman, Egyptian in the ancient world and British, French, German and Japanese empires in the modern world). All of these societies had one thing in common they did not envisage their own demise. In today’s world a European and American could not imagine the fall of the EEC or the USA yet these new modern empires have their own Achilles heal, “Capitalism”. Although Karl Marx saw the evils of capitalism and its eventual failure he could not have seen how it would grip the modern world to such a point that wars over oil and gas would dominate the 21st century. Marx however would probably laugh with glee at the failure in 2009 of the banking system based on greed and debt around the first nations of the planet. Most of the failures can be contributed to mismanagement but in fact it was a loss of confidence in the financial system by ordinary people that caused a rush on funds and inability to service crippling debt through high interest rates and little return on investments. When people panic they go into survival mode – they look after themselves first.

The Dark Side Conclusion:

At this junction it is time to conclude from these observations that social norms, laws and morals are actually “not normal” for human beings and that society often forces group behaviour based on what the powerful want over the powerless. That in fact survivalist mentality is our norm and that what society tries to do in fact is control the wild beast in every human by training them from an early age to obey the laws, rules and morals of the controlling group, usually the rich, who dominate our governments and institutions. Therefore should we condemn those that feel society is not offering them a fair deal – which in fact they should take what they need in order to survive an often hostile environment where privilege depends on your school, family or wealth? Psychology itself needs to come out of the closet and admit that normal human behaviour is to oppose rigid societies and rules? That in fact people resent society but because they are powerless against those who control law-making and morality they feel certain helplessness in trying to live amongst the sheep. Is it any wonder then occasionally a lone individual takes it into their own hands to change society or their own environment in order to live a more free self-controlled existence away from the rigours of societies that as we have seen all eventually breakdown and reinvent themselves as the new rich and powerful take control once again. In the last century we saw China go from a Empire ruled by depots to a military regime controlled by the rich and powerful, to transform itself into a communist stare of the 1950’s where Marxism would determine a fair life for all and eventually to the China of today as a capitalist socialist state based on a ruling party that determines the lives of the powerless populace, that in fact fought for the rulers to lord over them much as the Emperor of old – nothing changed except the rich and powerful.. Will another revolution occur in China in the future – at the moment it looks unlikely despite the unrest in many parts of China by minorities forced to comply with central rule. All empires cannot see their own demise! How will psychology then deal with this question of human behaviour as a basic survivalist mechanism, that in fact humans are naturally violent, cruel and dominating of others who are weaker than themselves? Psychiatry in mental hospitals is often seen as the agents of social control – if you do not agree with society and its rules then you must be insane – therefore you should be committed and controlled for the safety and benefit of all. Psychology on the other hand is seen as the liberating aspect of mental health – where we help those out of synch with society of find their place and fit back into what is considered normal behaviour for that group. Where will the answer be for those who rebel against the society they live in and want another way of existence with out the interference of the powerful and the freedom to live a life they choose as suiting themselves? Or do we wait – for the movies to come true – the disaster that awaits all humans and a return to a dog eat dog existence called survivalism – the real social norm!

END

End-note: I should as the author point out I am not advocating the American version of survivalists or any counter-revolutionaries in China or elsewhere nor do I condone actions against society that would lead to unhealthy outcomes. I do however recognise that societies change and fall often by what we term terrorists when they oppose our way of life and freedom fighters when they oppose a way of life that controls or restricts our personal freedoms. This as always is a philosophical question rather than a psychological one! I have not used the word evil in reference to human behaviour in this paper as the connotation infers a religious outlook which I certainly do not possess.

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 UK’s 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. Stephen’s 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.

Characteristics of Pre-Teen Aggressive Boys

Tuesday, January 5th, 2010

If we understand the characteristics of preteen aggressive boys, we can find ways to help these youth to be less aggressive. This was the purpose of a recent study. To this end, the characteristics of 231 boys ages 2 to 12 were assessed. The problems, treatment needs and resiliency of this group were evaluated. Youth with assaultive behaviors were compared to youth with no assaultive behaviors. Understanding their characteristics will help inform the direction that treatment needs to take.

Of the entire sample, 11% were under the age of 6, 29% were between the ages of 6 and 8, while 60% were ages 9 to 12. Ninety-eight percent of the sample were from rural and suburban areas of the mid- Atlantic region of the US. Eighty-four percent were living at home with their parents and 16% were in the care of an agency. Forty-four percent had a history of assaulting others and 56% did not have such a history. However, 80% had a history of moderate to severe behavior problems and 20% had histories of no or mild behavior problems.

There were similarities among the families of the assaultive boys that were not shared by the families of non-assaultive boys to the same extent. Significantly more (69%) of the families of assaultive boys had histories of family violence, than the families of non-assaultive boys (56%). Similarly, a greater percentage of the families of assaultive boys (65%) had low warmth and high conflict when compared to the families of non-assaultive boys (39%). Additionally, significantly fewer (1/3) of the families of assaultive boys used appropriate disciplinary practices (not too lax or too harsh and consistent), than the families of non-assaultive boys (1/2).

A greater percentage of the group of assaultive pre-adolescent males had skill deficits when compared to non-aggressive same age group of boys. More of the assaultive boys had deficits in problem solving, social, and anger management skills and the ability to have remorse for their misdeeds.

The behaviors of the two groups of boys were compared, as well. There were no differences in the percentage of each group that was known to abuse substances, running away from home, harming animals, or truancy. These behaviors occurred at very low rates in both groups. There were significant differences between groups in the percentage of boys that engaged in fire setting, delinquency, bullying others, and school behavior problems. Significantly more of the assaultive boys engaged in these behaviors than non-assaultive boys. The only behavior engaged in by more than half of the assaultive group was school behavior problems. In terms of resiliency factors, approximately ¼ of the assaultive boys and ½ of the non-assaultive boys were engaged in some type of positive activity. There were no other differences between groups on any resiliency items.

There were no significant differences between groups on the rates of psychiatric or neurological problems or distribution of IQ, However, A greater percentage (61% or 76) of the assaultive group were identified as having attachment problems than the non-assaultive group (31%). The assaultive boys were more than twice as likely to have attachment problems as the non-assaultive boys.

So while we see that there are some differences in the percentage of the 2 groups that have a particular problem, these differences do not totally separate the groups. It was hypothesized that the greater the number of problems and the fewer the resiliency factors, the higher a youth’s risk for violent behaviors would be. This appeared to be the case.

Conclusions
The assaultive boys were more than twice as likely to have attachment problems as the non-assaultive boys. having attachment problems meas that it is likely that the assaultive boys were raised in homes where they were abused, neglected, or exposed to domestic violence. Additionally, young assaultive males were twice as likely to lack remorse for their victims. More than half of the violent boys had anger management, problem solving and social skill deficits. Significantly more of the assaultive group of boys engaged in delinquent and bullying behaviors, fire setting and school behavior problems. A greater percentage of assaultive boys came from families with histories of violence, high conflict and low warmth, and inappropriate disciplinary practices.

Studies have indicated that high conflict, low warmth, violence, and inappropriate discipline in the home can lead to attachment problems among children. it has also been reported that attachment problems can be associated with problem solving, anger management and social skill deficits in children. These skill deficits can lead to delinquency and school behavior problems. The more of these problems that a youth and his family have, the more likely a youth will continue to have serious behavior problems, such as violence.

This information supports the research that youth with violent behaviors and their families have multiple problems and need multi-faceted treatment that addresses the needs of the youth and his/her family. It also points out that the domestic violence of parents is significantly related to the violence of the youth in their care. We must advocate for assessment and services for the children who are in households where there is domestic violence. It also points to the needs for families to be included in the interventions for youth who are at risk for violent behaviors.

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 the award winning book, “How Children Become Violent.” 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 the Discovery Channel ID Program, Wicked Attractions.

Give Yourself the Investigative Edge

Tuesday, December 22nd, 2009

If your public service involves interviewing surviving victims of or eyewitnesses to violent events, you will want to learn more about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and the Witness Memory Retrieval Technique and how each can impact your investigation.

Research proves there are two distinct human processes that prevent investigators and police personnel from conducting the most effective investigation when working with surviving victims of and eyewitnesses to violent crimes. Those processes have been identified as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Memory Retrieval (Recall).

What is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and how does it impact the Witness Memory Retrieval process?

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is a reaction to a violent event that evokes intense fear, terror and helplessness. Many surviving victims of violent crimes…rape, robbery, murder, kidnapping, terrorism, sexual abuse and physical assault, for example, are unable to recognize the signs of emotional stress they are experiencing. Traumatic events trigger feelings in victims from which they cannot easily recover, largely because they have not been helped to recognize and subsequently deal with their emotional and behavioral changes. These feelings impede an investigators’ ability to retrieve additional significant information paramount to solving a case.

As a police officer or investigator you are often the first contact victims have following a traumatic encounter. The importance of police interaction with victims cannot be underestimated. In many instances, victims suffer what is known as second injury in their interactions with police, judges, attorneys, physicians and other public authority figures. The term “second injury” refers specifically to a psychological injury, rather than a physical injury. The event will leave the victim in a vulnerable state of mind, causing them to perceive situations in a distorted and overly negative light.

Although it is natural to establish common perceptions about the kinds of behavior people exhibit, know that things are not always as they appear. The outcome of effective police-victim interviewing can have a positive dual impact, aiding you in retrieving pertinent and factual data relevant to your case, while protecting the immediate and potential future emotional well-being of the victim.

While you certainly are not expected to be an expert diagnostician or mental health professional, you are in an ideal position to help. Acquiring even basic information on PTSD combined with practical experience and cognitive interviewing skills can be a major benefit for eliciting more precise and vital investigative information.

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder manifests itself in phases beginning with the initial impact or shock the victim suffers and ultimately resulting in a healthy recovery. Dr. Calvin J. Frederick, retired Chief of Psychological Services at the Veterans Administration Medical Center in West Los Angeles, California has spent a career researching PTSD and has developed a Table that lists the phases a victim moves through and the physiological and psychological symptoms a victim is likely to display following a violent event.

In addition to becoming more aware of the signs of PTSD, there are initial intervention responses available to you. According to Dr. Martin Symonds, retired New York City Police Department psychiatrist, the first moments of police contact with a victim/witness are the most critical moments.

It is essential that the victim be provided with a feeling of trust and support and a lessening of any external threat following the trauma of a violent crime. Police officers, especially non-uniformed officers, should immediately identify themselves as such to the victim/witness. It would be helpful to include basic opening conversation such as “I’m sorry this happened to you” “It wasn’t your fault” and/or “I’m glad you’re alright.” This combined with preliminary intervention techniques will reinforce the victims’ trust that they are dealing with law enforcement officers who are sensitive to and aware of the trauma being suffered.

Lastly, the method in which a victim/witness is interviewed for police report taking is not only crucial to his/her emotional healing but also to the type and amount of investigative information you are able to retrieve.

The most widely used ’standard’ method of interviewing is a series of questions beginning with a description of the suspect(s) – sex, age, race, height, weight, color of hair and eyes and the victim’s account of the event.

The second method of interviewing is hypnosis, generally performed by a specially trained forensic hypnotist. With the victim in a state of altered consciousness, the forensic hypnotist asks questions and solicits answers. This method is the least used because of the negative legal ramifications it poses within the judicial system.

The third method is the cognitive Witness Memory Retrieval Technique (WMRT), researched and developed by Dr. R. Edward Geiselman of the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). WMRT is a collection of memory-jogging techniques designed to provide investigators with an organized series of focused memory retrieval ‘cues’ and steps that help victims/witnesses retrieve and elaborate on information stored in the memory.

The theoretical support of the research and development are based on two generally accepted principles of memory:

* A memory is comprised of several elements. The more elements a memory retrieval ‘cue’ has in common with the recall of an event, the more effective the ‘cue’ is in retrieving information.
* A memory has several access routes, so information that is not accessible with one retrieval ‘cue’ may be accessed with a different one.

The purpose of the Witness Memory Retrieval Technique, when used in conjunction with the standard interview method, maximizes the quantity and quality of information retrieved while minimizing the effects of misleading or inaccurate information.

Skillful incident-specific treatment is an absolute prerequisite for effective police-victim relations and problem resolution. Determining the most reliable and effective tools available is a concern for most law enforcement investigators. Any valid interviewing instrument should be designed to deduce the pertinent facts, identifications and recollection of the event that best assist you in the apprehension and conviction of the criminal suspect(s). Essential bits of information can make the difference between the time you spend on solid leads and the time you spend following up on weak ones.

As you well know violent events happen in a matter of seconds and yet it’s amazing what the memory can store. To test your own Memory Recall for FREE and for further information on the Witness Memory Retrieval Technique training video and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder go to http://www.GiveYourselfTheInvestigativeEdge.com.

Give Yourself the Investigative Edge is dedicated to providing training to assist investigators, criminal justice students, first-on-scene responders, and any public official that would have the occasion to interview a survivng victim of or eyewitness to a violent event. What they know and learn about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and memory recall can help them increase the amount of investigative information they retrieve by up to 35%. Research indicates that as much as 90% of that information is accurate.

Law enforcement officers, while receiving maximum training in suspect interrogation, receive little or no formal training in the proper techniques of interviewing cooperating witnesses. The Cognitive Interview process (aka The Witness Memory Retrieval Technique) was developed by Dr. R. Edward Geiselman, Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of California at Los Angeles and is a system for conducting interviews with willing surviving victim’s/eyewitnesses which involves using ‘Memory Cues’ designed to get to the deeper recesses of the memory bank. Using the cognitive interview method tends to cut down on misleading information received in the standard interview used by many law enforcement personnel.

Advanced methods of obtaining more accurate and detailed information becomes critical when it is time for a witness to make a suspect identification during a lineup or ’six-pack’ photospread or when called to testify in court. The cognitive interview method can enhance an eyewitness’s ability to recall events and provide solid investigative information. Test your own memory recall for FREE at: http://www.GiveYourselfTheInvestigativeEdge.com.

Christianity and Verbal First Aid

Thursday, December 17th, 2009

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.

A Complete Guide to Forensic Psychology

Tuesday, December 8th, 2009

History:

Forensic psychology came in light in the twirl of the twentieth century. In 1901, William stern studied on recollection of memory course. He made his students to analyze a picture for few seconds and then asked questions to them relating to it. He then concluded from his research that memories which are recalled are in general not precise. Lead-in query are frequently use in police force cross-examination and in inquiring spectators. The first forensic psychologist is often said to be “Hugo Munster berg”. He wrote a book which was published in 1908 which was titled as “On the Witness Stand”. There were some other scientist who has created some test which is helpful for the legal proceeding is Sigmund Freud and Alfred Bi net. There studies suggested that the time taken by an individual to answer a question may possibly be an aspect in determining guiltiness or incorruptibility.

About forensic psychology:

It is the interface between psychology and the law, so all psychosomatic services offered for the official community is forensic psychological services. The services provided are both medical and forensic in nature. It is also known as the application of science and its answers to the queries relating to the rules and regulation of the legal system. The term “forensic” came from “forensic” which means the forum it is a Latin word. Presently it refers for the purpose of technical and scientific principles to carry out a challenging process which is possible with a well-educated and highly professional scientist.

Key terms:

Some key terms in forensic psychology are Insanity, Expert Witness, Competency, Jury Consulting and Criminal Profiling. Some motivating Sub fields contained by this Psychology are social psychology, developmental psychology, cognitive psychology, criminal investigative psychology and clinical-forensic psychology.

Pros and cons in the field of forensic psychology:

Pros: Helping Others, Opportunities, Varying surroundings, acknowledgment and Personal Fulfillment, long-lasting Education, threat of Injury, no independent work it always teamwork, and Burnout Risk.

Cons: long-lasting Education, threat of Injury, no independent work it always teamwork, and Burnout Risk.

Qualities needed in Forensic Psychologist:

Desirable ability, aptitude, and acquaintance are the key qualities for forensic psychology. Those with an aspiration to work must be patient, flexible, at ease working with others, and take pleasure in doing research. One also have to be a good quality speaker for the reason that a lot of people who do work in this field work as specialist spectators at a few point through their career. An expertise in irregular, motivational, scientific, and social psychology is also main features to be victorious in this field. Additionally, working in this field requires continuing education throughout career, even after 5-7 years of graduate school. One cannot be a certified psychologist with out a doctoral degree.

Institutions for Master degree courses

A few Terminal Master Degree courses for practicing a profession in Forensic Psychology are Forensic Psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the University of Melbourne.

George Anto is a Copywriter of Psychology, Forensic Psychology, Community Psychology. He written many articles in various topics such as sports Psychology. For more information visit: http://psychegames.com.