Psychology Articles

Niccolo Machiavelli studied human relations and interactions during the time of the Borgias. This led to the creation of his masterpiece the Prince which is the fundamental treatise in modern politics. He uncovered that politics is not only about systems of influence and structures of power it was also about in-depth knowledge of human behavior and tendencies. He proposed that a person who aspires to wield power must be able to mold the views, actions and even inclinations of others to meet his own ends. This referred to extensive manipulation of individuals through various and often illicit means. He set aside the concerns of ethics and morality and contended that the ultimate good or righteousness of an act lie not in the means for it but the end result.

Much of Machiavelli’s principles of politics were about human manipulation. This as proposed by him can be undertaken through many means most of which are not apparent to those subjected to it. In short, a master manipulator must be able to shape the views and direct the conduct of others with them not even knowing that they are mere pawns in the political game of the mastermind. He also contended that essential for a capable political leader to govern well is the possession of information about the political climate he is in.

With the development of social engineering as the set of approaches and methodologies which implicitly allow information to be extracted from individuals. There is an extensive application of duplicity, manipulation and the shaping of human actions for the purposes of another. This modern mechanism for the procurement of knowledge takes advantage of human inclinations, psyche and nature. This makes it an updated application of the precepts set forth by Machiavelli. Among the core concepts that he came up with was to use human nature and take advantage of it. This extends to the extraction of information.

Machiavelli held the view that to be at an advantage, even the realm of information gathering, one must be an ambiguity to those that is sought out for the said information. The political benefits of being able to know without alerting others of the same are incalculable. With social engineering and the methods, it proposes Machiavellianism is made manifest even in modern times. The system of manipulating individuals so as to access the knowledge they possess is at the very core of what he wrote all those years ago.

Social engineering may be a modern innovation, but it is one, which is imbued by wisdom, which dates back to the time of Machiavelli. It is a more up to date application of his concepts. The idea that to harvest information means must be employed that took advantage of the weaknesses of the human mind, and persona is essentially Machiavellian. To prey on these frailties and conceal the former as espoused in social engineering is a practical application of his philosophy in human relations. This in turn ensures that in the modern age, the ideas of Niccolo Machiavelli survive and find new expression.

The translation of the meaning of dreams according to the scientific method of dream interpretation will help you understand the influence of the wild side of your conscience (anti-conscience) into the human side of your conscience. You will learn what determines your behavior and how to acquire sound mental health.

For example, dreams about other people give you information about your own behavior. Each person who appears in your dream is a part of your personality that has the same characteristics of the people who appear in the dream. Therefore, if you’ll have a dream about a person who has the tendency to distort the truth and present the facts according to their personal opinion, this means that a certain part of your personality imitates this person’s attitude.

Now, if the part of your personality who distorts the truth is a policeman in a dream, this means that this part of your personality is responsible for your self-defensive mechanism.

Putting everything together: Your self-defense is controlled by a component of your personality that has the tendency to lie and distort the truth.

When you’ll relate this information to your life biography (since you are the dreamer) you will understand that you have this self-defensive reaction because you had a traumatic childhood. You always defend yourself with a component of your personality that presents the truth according to your desires and not as it really is.

This attitude reflects abnormal behavior. Your abnormal behavior denounces the existence of a behavioral disorder. In other words, your anti-conscience managed to generate a mental illness within your human conscience because you had a trauma when you were a child.

You always have a self-defensive reaction given by a component of your personality that is not conscious, but belongs to your wild conscience. You adopt this behavior in order to protect yourself from the attacks of the world, and from your own thoughts. However, this reaction is based on absurd criteria.

Your self-defensive reaction is based on the distortion of the truth. It is the result of a traumatic experience. It is not a conscious and positive reaction before what is bad.

The unconscious mind analyzes your behavior in order to show you why you are making mistakes, and how you can stop doing what has a negative effect on your personality and life.

A mental illness is caused by the invasion of the absurdity of your anti-conscience into the human side of your conscience. It begins with a trauma and the acceptance of the absurd ideas of your wild side, which pretends to give you solutions to your problems.

All behavioral disorders reflect the control of your anti-conscience, which takes the place of your ego. It invades your conscience with its absurd ideas. Then, it gradually destroys your capacity to think logically. It also distorts your behavior. The unconscious mind gives you many explanations and lessons in the dream images in order to eliminate the negative influence of your anti-conscience.

Without understanding what causes absurd reactions and what kind of mistakes you make for being influenced by the absurdity of your anti-conscience, you cannot stop being a victim of your wild nature. Only after understanding what is negative and must be eliminated, will you acquire permanent mental stability and perfect behavioral health.

Christina Sponias continued Carl Jung’s research into the human psyche, discovering the cure for all mental illnesses, and simplifying the scientific method of dream interpretation that teaches you how to exactly translate the meaning of your dreams, so that you can find health, wisdom and happiness. Learn more at: http://www.scientificdreaminterpretation.com Click Here to download a Free Sample of the eBook Dream Interpretation as a Science (86 pages!).

If you do actually want to be sad and stay sad, don’t make any decisions that could impact on your life! It will, of course, classify you as an unhappy “Maximiser” according to research by Professor Joyce Ehrlinger of Florida State University, but at least you won’t risk making the wrong decision? It seems we all have a choice. We can choose to be “Maximisers or Satisficers.” Yet the behavioural difference between them is profound in both its nature and its results.

I have already written on the Five Levels of Happiness as a way of achieving full happiness across one’s life. But of course that involves making a whole gamut of different choices or decisions related to each and every aspect of our life. Professor Ehrlinger has concluded that many of us are capable of falling at the first fence!

Why?

Because if we are inclined to think far too much about making a decision in the first place, we are very likely to risk adopting an unhappy existence, always fretting about whether the decision is the right one or not. For example, what happens if it is wondering “Should I really go to a friend’s party? Should I change my job? Or even, should I really say yes to this marriage proposal?” One can heap deep unhappiness on ourselves by not making a choice if we live in constant fear of making the wrong decision.

And even if apparently in regard to some choice presented to us, we do bring ourselves to make a decision as a Maximiser, we can then lead a life of unending rumination, tormenting ourselves over whether it was the right move! If this describes us, then the research says we never enjoy the psychological benefits of commitment and our life becomes one overladen by grief. It could strike at the root of potential relationships or career opportunities, multiplying the feeling of unhappiness.

The opposite seems true of “Satisficers.” They have patterned a different behavioural approach altogether. They think the issue through as far as they can and then when they arrive at the final element of doubt, they are far more inclined to listen to their instincts, their sixth sense. If it says, “Do it!” Then they do just that. They are happy that if it works out – then fine, and if it doesn’t – then they will not hold it against themselves or give themselves grief over it.

In my experience of observing myself and others, I think there is another clear difference between “Maximisers” and “Saticficers.” Simply stated, “Maximisers” flirt with the danger of striving to be perfectionists and no less. Satisficers” on the other hand, are much more pragmatic about their own fallibility. And they are much more comfortable in their own skin. They also have a higher sense of self-worth and self-esteem.

For Maximisers, happiness can appear a luxury they cannot afford. But for Satisficers they are far more open to happiness. They let it in and enjoy it.

Happiness is so often there for our taking. Clearly we can kill it or accommodate for it in pretty well everything we do!

Sir Gerry Neale is the author of a self-discovery novel called Squaring Circles. It is published in paperback in the UK. It is available from Amazon (co.uk) and other booksellers

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

Your dreams reflect what is happening in your brain and psyche. They also reflect what is happening in the world. They give you information about those who are important for you.

Dreams are real treasures, but this is something that you will realize only when you’ll follow the right method of dream interpretation. All the false methods of the world simply mislead you with false impressions because they are based on opinions.

Don’t waste your time with these methods. You have to translate the meaning of dreams according to the scientific method of dream interpretation discovered by Carl Jung and simplified by me in order to understand the real value of the dream messages.

If you have no time or patience to study the dream language, I can translate your dreams for you and provide you with psychotherapy. Many people prefer this option, but I also have many good students who have learned the dream language and are very grateful for having this knowledge.

Your dreams basically talk about you and your life. The unconscious mind that produces your dreams gives you information about everything because anything could cause a mental illness.

You are basically an under-developed primate. You have inherited a huge wild conscience (anti-conscience), which is totally absurd because it is primitive and violent. Your human conscience is one-sided and must be developed. Your intelligence is too limited. You also live in a world where everyone is a selfish hypocrite and justice is only a myth. Therefore, you are in a very dangerous position.

This is why the unconscious mind gives you information and lessons in dreams. You must develop your intelligence through dream translation and get rid of your wild tendencies. These tendencies are negative; they ruin your personality and life. You also must protect yourself from the negative tendencies of those around you.

The unconscious mind opens your eyes, showing you everything that you cannot see.

This knowledge is unpleasant and sad in the beginning because you understand that everything is bad on Earth, and everyone is a selfish coward who could betray you for any reason. You also realize the depth of your ignorance and absurdity. You cannot but feel disgusted. However, this vision helps you avoid making mistakes. This vision also helps you avoid falling into hidden traps.

Of course, it’s not easy to admit the truth you dislike. Many people refuse believing in an unpleasant truth.

For example, recently one of my patients asked me how I can be so sure that I’m the only person in this world who knows how to accurately translate the meaning of dreams. He started making me many questions. He was quite aggressive because he didn’t want to accept the bitter truth reflected in his dreams.

The unconscious mind was showing him that he was making a very big mistake. However, he didn’t want to accept this fact because he wanted to believe in his illusions.

I knew he would react this way because he was too far from his reality, but I have the moral obligation to accurately translate the unconscious words. Dream interpretation according to the scientific method of dream interpretation is a very serious practice that respects the meaning given by the unconscious mind to the dream images.

The unconscious mind knows everything. It has a saintly nature and it works like a natural doctor. Thus, you can trust the unconscious messages in dreams without fear.

Of course, it’s sad to discover that you are wrong and you should not insist on your plans, but it’s better to suffer in order to prevent a catastrophe, than to be the victim of a tragedy.

You have to look at the ugly and bitter truth without refusing to open your eyes. Only after understanding the truth, can you stop doing what is bad for you and your life. If you cannot see what originates your problems, you are an eternal victim of the absurdity you have inherited into the biggest part of your brain, and an eternal victim of the absurdity of the world.

Don’t be narrow-minded. After seeing what is bad, you’ll understand that you have to do something in order to change your life. You’ll stop accepting your suffering without eliminating what causes pain. Therefore, you will always be happy with yourself and your life.

Your dreams give you many explanations, answers, and solutions.

The relationship between your dreams and your life has many dimensions. This relationship is visible in real facts. When you translate the meaning of dreams and you follow the unconscious guidance, many interesting things happen to you. Dream translation is not a theoretical practice.

As soon as you start transforming your personality through dream translation, you meet important people, you go to important places, and you see important facts happening in your life. Dream interpretation according to the scientific method is a movement that reaches all fields, besides working like psychotherapy.

After eliminating everything that is negative, you start having many positive experiences. You meet intelligent people, you go to magical places, you find unbelievable opportunities, and so on. Your life stops being a problematic drama; it becomes a wonderful experience.

Therefore, the time and effort you’ll put on transforming your personality, and the sadness you’ll feel for seeing the bitter truth of your reality will help you achieve new goals. You’ll stop being an eternal victim of the wild side of your conscience and an eternal victim of the wickedness of the world. You’ll always feel safe, and evolve.

Christina Sponias continued Carl Jung’s research into the human psyche, discovering the cure for all mental illnesses, and simplifying the scientific method of dream interpretation that teaches you how to exactly translate the meaning of your dreams, so that you can find health, wisdom and happiness. Learn more at: http://www.scientificdreaminterpretation.com Click Here to download a Free Sample of the eBook Dream Interpretation as a Science (86 pages!).

What is really out there? Why do we think that we think? This article explores some of the classic works on the topic.

Ross and Nisbett argue that our perceptions of ourselves and our casual attributions for our actions are not in fact complete or correct: we are not born tabla rasa, we do not consistently build basic beliefs, and we cannot predict or control the way we will act. Phychologists and sociologists provide support for this through numerous studies that show a basically consistent, unpredicted, and unsystematic patterns of behavior. Some authors begin by breaking down the idea that our opinions or reactions are as independent and systematic as we may believe. Sherif’s “autokinetic” study and the Ash Paradigm study illustrate that we often act differently when in groups (with group norms, pressure, bias, and social factors). We conform to group pressure (Ash), or, even more extremely, shift our perceptions in order to align ourselves with a group (Sherrif). The Bennington studies, which show how our beliefs about the world are deeply and irreversibly influenced by our social surroundings, illustrate that this effect is not trivial or isolated but instead can have far-reaching and self-defining consequences.

Sherif’s later studies on group dynamics similarly show us that our world perceptions (us vs. them, me vs. you, good vs. bad) can be arbitrary. Chapter three expands on this point with a social slant: Our world is constructed in a social setting and so the opinions of others and the judgments of others play a dynamic part in this construction. I.e., our world is not necessarily “warped” by others opinions but others opinions actually play a role in determining what our world looks like. The “attribution theory of emotion” and the Nisbett and Wilson (1977) cognitive process blindness theory take this one step further claiming that we do not really see the world as we think we do at all.

Ross and Nisbett impose their own interpretation on these findings. They repeatedly argue that we interpret and construct the world in a dynamic way, based on the perceptions and influences of our social surroundings, situational factors, and personality characteristics. They then claim that we are overly unaware that we are only seeing one way to interpret the world. “This lack of awareness of our own construal processes blinds us to the possibility that someone else, differently situated, might construe the same objects in a different way… People sometimes construe the same object differently because they view it from different angles rather than because they are fundamentally different people…. The divergence [exhibited in the Asch experiments] may reflect differences not in the “judgment of the object” but in the construal of just what “the object of judgment” is.” (p82). We make the false assumption that we see it as it is rather than as we interpret it. It is not clear here whether the differences in individual interpretations of the worlds are due only to different external factors (social, environmental, etc) or also to different processing factors (i.e. the mental and physical machines with which we process this information).

Ross and Nisbett do not explicitly state what I see as a major consequence, and synthesis, of both their chapters and much of the literature. But perhaps this is because I do not have and have not read their later chapters. With this caveat, Ross and Nisbett (1) begin by attempting to prove that our world is to an extent an arbitrary construction. They continue (2) by showing that it is important to us that out world be in line with others in our group or reference set (social pressure) and they end (3) with the interesting claim that we misunderstand the world in a fundamental way (with mistakes in traits, etc). To me there is a clear logical step that stands between their points (1) and (2). That (1.5) that we are, on some deep unconscious level, insecure and unsure of the ontological nature of the world and thus need to constantly adjust our view of it depending on the situation and context (see they do not take William James’ point on p. 68 seriously enough) or align ourselves with others in order to attempt to interpret it in the best/most useful way.

It helps if we assume for a moment that there is no “correct” way to interpret the world – and Ross and Nisbett I think would agree with this. Perhaps even the idea of a “correct” way to interpret the world is a non-sensical statement. All constructions are heuristics simplifications intrinsically since the world does not have, unlike our constructions of the world, imbedded causality only systematic temporal correlations. An interpretation is meant, therefore, to be useful in our world, which a deeply social and dynamic one. Why is it therefore surprising that we adjust, conform to, and closely monitor others opinions? If our interpretations are wrong, and we know they always are, there is no good reason to stick to them if they are not working. Our perception of length is clearly not functioning correctly if it derives an answer different from everyone else (since deriving an answer that is useful is our goal, not deriving an answer that is true and it is useful to have an agreed upon idea of length).

So the surprising thing is that we ever believe that we are objectively right about things or that we believe our views are “the way things are,” not that we adjust our world-views in the face of social, environmental, or situational pressure (and various evolutionary psychology arguments have attempted to explain this argument on the grounds of efficiency). Bishop Berkeley, Occationalism, and David Hume have all trodden this ground. I do not mean to make the facile claim that we should always give in to social pressure, that we should always tailor our views to match those around us, only that to explain a deviation from this behavior one need to apply to other reasons than one being “correct” or, even, more arguably, perhaps, “truth.” That our views are deeply inadequate and inefficient, as chapter four argues, is a much harsher claim leveled by Ross and Nisbett in this context.

The literature often builds up a model of perception/ internal_world-creation and the later then added a component questioning the element of causality. For example, Straw, Bell, Clausen piece questions the emergent literature on situational attributions to job attitudes in favor of a more dispositional approach. Studies, they claim lay too much emphasis on the social, the interpretational elements of a job, over-stating the role that the work environment that will determine an individual’s happiness in it. Instead, one can correlate the individual’s happiness and job satisfaction in many respects well before he/she enters the work place. Thus, it is the characteristics, attitudes, and nature and the individual who is the prime determinant of whether or not he/she is happy in the job. This research is interestingly interrelated to the previous Ross Nisbett piece, since Ross and Nisbett’s argument that the person interprets the environment lends itself to the conclusion that no matter what environment an individual is put into, he/she will largely affect the way he/she perceives that environment and thus his/her feelings about it.

In contrast to Straw, et al., Davis-Blake and Pfeffer (1989) argue that the dispositionalist argument is deeply flawed. They claim that the individual’s characteristics are dynamic in nature and therefore they change in time and are furthermore deeply affected by their environment. Therefore, one can expect that an employee, especially in the long term, will be very deeply affected by the nature and prevailing attitudes of his/her workplace. They point to the extreme cases of military training facilities, which are able to dramatically affect the psychology of an individual. Sneider (1987) returns fire with a volley that asserts that the “culture” of a firm is simply the people in it. That these people are self-selecting and will tend to attract compatible people, and that the world is a dynamic place of individuals, not forces. The last piece of the puzzle, the piece by Arvey and Bouchard (1994) builds a strong foundation under the dispositionalist camp but also shows the complexity of the problem. It addresses the nature vs. nurture debate by reviewing the literature to show that while it seems that genetics do make some difference (this lends credit to dispositionalists who would like to claim that people have characteristics, genetic or otherwise, that persist over time) environment is also a large factor (situationalists can grab onto this evidence).

This debate, first between situationalists and dispositionalists about the source of ones attitude about the workplace, and then about the source of our personality (nature vs. nurture) have serious consequences which many of the authors discuss. If we are in fact shaped by our environments, then companies might want to invest significant resources into “culture” and creating a productive workplace. But if our attitudes and productivity are a function of our personalities, then companies might want to select those people with attractive qualities for their company. This has troubling moral consequences as some authors point out.

I would like to emphasize how these points are building up a literature that focuses on central questions about why we view the world the way we do, what effects the world has on us, and what the source of our feelings, attitudes and lives are. The battle lines of the difference sides of this debate are, from this perspective, artificially clear.

If, for example, we ask the question of FREE WILL, for example, the sides dramatically shift. The dispositionalist camp splits into two, some taking a deterministic evolutionary view and others taking view that our personalities are developed early by our environment. The situationalists might point out that we CHOOSE our workplaces and thus choose the sorts of influences that will shape our character. So while we are not in total control of what we will feel about our job, our creativity, etc, we can choose what sorts of forces will affect these metrics. Aristotle, who’s view on almost anything is worth looking up, coined the phrase Akrasia, and this phrase can be applied to this bebate with perhaps some fruitful insights. It is Greek for “weakness of will”. He claimed that we are morally responsible for the consequences of a choice in the long term, even if we are not morally free at the time of our choices. The best modern example of this is if one chooses to get drunk one is responsible for one’s actions while drunk even if one does not have the ability to control one’s actions while drunk. So one is responsible for choosing the path that led to an action even if one is not directly responsible for that action. Of course, Aristotle chose the more controversial example of choosing to live a life of moral weakness and moral compromise which weakened the will to the point that one was not a good/moral person. He claimed that one was responsible for immorality not because we choose to become weak enough to do these acts. I think that these different camps might gain some insight into their nature/nurture dispositionalist/situationalist objective/subjective debates if Aristotle’s wisdom were headed more carefully.

Readings:

Ross, L. & Nisbett, R.E. (1991). The Person and the Situation: Perspectives of Social Psychology. New York: McGraw Hill. Chapters 2, 3, & 4.

Asch, S.E. (1958). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In E.E. Maccoby; T.M. Newcomb & E.L. Hartley (eds.), Reading in Social Psychology. New York: Henry Holt and Company (pp. 174-183).

Staw, B.; Bell, N. & Clausen, J. (1986). The dispositional approach to job attitudes: A lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31: 56-77.

Davis-Blake, Alison & Pfeffer, Jeffrey. (1989). Just a mirage: The search for dispositional effects in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 14: 385-400.

Schneider, Benjamin. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40: 437-453.

Arvey, R.D. & Bouchard, T.J. (1994). Genetic twins and organizational behavior. In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 16: 47-82.

Phin Upham has a PhD in Applied Economics from the Wharton School (University of Pennsylvania). Phin is a Term Member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He can be reached at phin@phinupham.com

You can find more info here: Phin Upham

The psychotherapy of the unconscious mind is a magical solution that will surely save you from depression, neurosis, and all mental disorders. This psychotherapy helps you attain total consciousness as you eliminate your anti-conscience, which generates all mental disorders.

I will give you an example, so that you may see that the confused dream images make sense when we translate them according to the scientific method of dream interpretation. You will also verify the therapeutic effect of the unconscious messages in a dream.

This is a dream scene from a 20-30 years old woman’s dream:

‘I’m in a shopping mall. I walked by foot upstairs very slowly. I see some friends, Friend A (who is now late, but he was a fun person), Friend B (who is also now late, was a generous person) and Friend C (takes her religion seriously). I went to the top of the building where I opened the door, I saw people eating and celebrating.’

The dreamer described the meaning that the friends who appeared in the dream had for her because she regularly submits her dreams for a professional dream translation. She already knows that I need her description in order to perfectly translate the meaning of her dreams.

Each person who appears in a dream represents a part of the dreamer’s personality, which has the same characteristics of the person who appears in the dream.

Dream Translation:

I’m in a shopping mall. I walked by foot upstairs very slowly,

The shopping mall is a place where you choose how to be. In other words, which behavior you’ll adopt.

When you go upstairs in dreams, you go to the conscious level. Since you go up very slowly, this means that you are having the right attitude because you are carefully bringing the bad characteristics of your anti-conscience (which is always in the bottom of your psyche) up to the conscious level.

This means that you are carefully examining the negative content you have inherited into your wild conscience.

I see some friends Friend A (who is now late, but he was a fun person), Friend B (who is also now late, was a generous person) and Friend C (takes her religion seriously).

These friends are parts of your personality that have the same characteristics of their personalities. They represent a fun part, a generous part, and a religious part of your personality.

When you see a dead person in dreams this means that you don’t need their example in order to avoid making their mistakes, or in order to do what is right like them. You already are imitating their example.

The meaning of these parts of your personality will be positive or negative, depending on the characteristics of the dead people who appear in a dream.

You are funny because you completely imitate the example of your dead Friend A.

Friend B represents your generosity. Since she is dead like Friend A, this means that you don’t need her example. You already are generous like her.

However, since you are with two positive parts of your personality that are already part of your behavior because the friends who appeared in your dream and represent these positive parts of your personality are already dead, and with your friend C (who represents another positive part of your personality that takes her religion seriously) who is not dead, this means that you are not taking your religion seriously. You are only funny and generous.

However, you must cultivate your religiosity. You need faith in order to successfully face all challenges.

I went to the top of the building where I opened the door, I saw people eating and celebrating.

Here the unconscious mind is showing you that when you’ll manage to adopt the right attitude and show intelligent behavior (the top of the building) all parts of your personality will celebrate your victory (people eating).

As you can see, the unconscious mind doesn’t explain to the dreamer that she must have faith in a simple way, but tells her an entire story. This happens not only because the unconscious mind must hide its messages from the dangerous anti-conscience of the dreamer, as well as because the unconscious messages work like psychotherapy. They are not empty words.

The unconscious messages are poetic and philosophical because they try to increase our sensitivity.

I’m going to show you the unconscious messages separately, so that you may verify this truth:

“Remember the behavioral lessons you had in the past. You learned how to be funny by imitating the example of your friend A. You learned how to be generous by imitating the example of your friend B. However, you didn’t learn how to be religious like your friend C.

You must follow Friend C’s example because without faith you won’t be able to face all life challenges and triumph.

When you’ll have the right attitude and you’ll show intelligent behavior, all parts of your personality will gladly celebrate your victory.

However, you must believe in your victory in order to achieve this goal. You need faith as much as you need a humorous mood and generosity in order to triumph.”

The unconscious messages are behavioral lessons that help you transform your personality and evolve. They help you become more sensitive because they make you pay attention to various details.

I can translate your dreams for you in case you have no time or disposition to study the dream language. I also teach you how to become a professional dream translator like me. Choose the option you prefer, and start reaping the benefits of this knowledge. The unconscious wisdom will help you eliminate the dangerous influence of your anti-conscience and find peace. You’ll always have the right attitude and always triumph.

Christina Sponias continued Carl Jung’s research into the human psyche, discovering the cure for all mental illnesses, and simplifying the scientific method of dream interpretation that teaches you how to exactly translate the meaning of your dreams, so that you can find health, wisdom and happiness. Learn more at: http://www.scientificdreaminterpretation.com Click Here to download a Free Sample of the eBook Dream Interpretation as a Science (86 pages!).

Whenever we enter a human space we consciously and unconsciously tune into and are influenced by the emotions of others around us both positively and negatively. This inborn tendency to be emotionally “in synch” with the other humans around us is what psychological researchers call emotional contagion.

We respond instinctively to the emotional tone of those around us and all normal human beings are susceptible to emotional contagion to some degree.

Emotional contagion and Empathy
Emotional contagion in its most positive form is the basis of the human virtue of empathy. We need to be emotionally in tune with others in order to understand them, get along with them and to function effectively in the human social world.

Highly sensitive people’s finely detailed observational abilities make them more responsive than most to the nuances of other people’s feelings. This sometimes leads them to shy away from crowds since the mass of emotional messages is just too confusing. But even one-on-one relating can be emotionally challenging to a person who reads and responds strongly other’s subtle emotional cues.

Since HSP’s own emotional responses are intense, quick to arise and hard to shake off, they often find themselves getting caught up uncomfortably in other people’s feelings. Being attuned to the rawness of other people’s emotions and even taking them on through emotional contagion can be an unpleasant and aversive experience.

Danger of Co-dependency
Since vicariously experiencing other’s unhappiness, rage or despair are so painful for a highly sensitive individual, it is easy to understand why it would be tempting for them to collude or manage social situations so as to keep others on an emotionally even keel. When the need to ensure that those around them are never angry or upset becomes a preoccupation there is a danger of developing co-dependant relationships.

Psychologist Fatima Nabi describes co-dependant behavior:
“Co-dependents feel responsible for others. They feel anxious when they hear of others experiencing difficulty, and will do whatever it takes to alleviate their burdens. Co-dependents’ obsession with worrying about others affects their personal lives.. It is easy for co-dependents to allow others to take advantage of them; however, this leads to feelings of resentment.”

Staying ahead of the other’s emotional curve.
Because a sensitive person is so able to empathically intuit what others are feeling, and because they are often quite skilled at recognizing and naming feelings, they sometimes find themselves in the peculiar position of having a better idea of what their family member or partner is feeling than that person may themselves.

This foresight often leads to a temptation to manage situations pre-emptively.

Sometimes this is simple kindness and tact.
A sensitive conversational partner will gently turn the conversation away when the subject begins to approach an area that the other might find painful, for example, one might not talk about babies with a woman who has just had a miscarriage.

Unfortunately, reluctance to deal with a painful subject may not always be in the sensitive person’s best interest.
A highly sensitive person’s unwillingness to risk arousing strong emotions in others may mean that they collude with their partners or loved ones, or remain silent when potentially emotionally arousing subjects need to be discussed.

It might be that the woman who had a miscarriage needs to speak about it to feel better, even at the risk of bursting into tears or raging against fate.
A partner who feels shame about a drinking problem may be easily provoked to anger when it is mentioned but needs help to stop their self-destructive behavior.
An adult child who does not look for work and continues to live at home may need to be confronted with their irresponsible and immature behavior in order to grow up.

In a co-dependant scenario a highly sensitive person may tolerate bad or destructive behavior from partners, family members or friends just to avoid
“a scene”. The sensitive person’s normal and reasonable personal needs or projects may be eternally sidelined to avoid conflict in a relationship.

“Forewarned is fore-armed”…. or “This is going to hurt me as much as it hurts you…(really)!”
Willingness to engage in direct and candid discussion of painful subjects is an important interpersonal skill and worth cultivating as a value and discipline.

Understanding that some of the anxiety that you feel may be emotional contagion and originating in the other rather than in yourself makes it easier to tolerate.
Expecting the arousal and providing yourself with strategies to calm yourself after the difficult encounter such as listening to favorite music or taking a brisk walk, may help to reduce the overall impact of the arousing encounter

Even though exposure to another person’s raw emotions is difficult and even literally painful for a sensitive person, this pain can be faced with courage and determination when the gain is recognized as being worth the effort.

Susan Meindl, MA, is a licensed psychologist in private practice in Montreal Canada. She has a special interest in Highly Sensitive People and practices a Jungian approach to psychodynamic psychotherapy

http://therapists.psychologytoday.com/rms/59983

When, in 1995, David Chalmers outlined what he believed to be a distinction between the “easy” problems of consciousness and the “hard” problem of consciousness, Daniel Dennett was quick to point out a fundamental flaw in his reasoning. I suggest that this same flaw exists in the logic of a whole range of philosophical positions concerning philosophy of mind.

Chalmers and Dennett

The philosopher David Chalmers has argued that the problem of explaining why human beings possess subjective experiences (which he terms the hard problem of consciousness) is distinct from other problems of conscious (e.g., how the brain focuses attention or reacts to environmental stimuli), in that these second kinds of problems can be solved by elucidating the neural mechanisms by which they take place, whilst the hard problem cannot be solved by invoking a mechanism.

The philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett published a response to David Chalmers, in which he argued that a complete understanding of all of the “easy” problems of consciousness would provide an explanation of the hard problem.

Dennett further elaborates on his position with the following analogy, taken directly from his paper “Facing Backwards on the Problem of Consciousness”:

“Imagine some vitalist who says to the molecular biologists: The easy problems of life include those of explaining the following phenomena: reproduction, development, growth, metabolism, self-repair, immunological self-defence… These are not all that easy, of course, and it may take another century or so to work out the fine points, but they are easy compared to the really hard problem: life itself. We can imagine something that was capable of reproduction, development, growth, metabolism, self-repair and immunological self-defence, but that wasn’t, you know, alive. The residual mystery of life would be untouched by solutions to all the easy problems.”

Dennett’s point is obvious: that “life” is merely the sum total of all the biological processes he lists. It is not some mystical, transcendent property of matter which exists above and beyond the physical processes which life demonstrates. By analogy, consciousness is not some mystical, transcendent property of the brain, existing above and beyond the physical processes of firing neurons.

I believe that this same fallacy exists in many philosophical positions, and is the root cause of much disagreement among philosophers, scientists and other commentators.

Free Will

I have previously outlined my stance on free will in my article “Free Will: Libet and the Readiness Potential”. I cannot see any logical reason why either determinism or neuroscience should invalidate the idea that humans have free will. Essentially, I am a compatibilist.

This position has perhaps best been expressed by Jack Copeland in his book “Artificial Intelligence: A Philosophical Introduction”. Copeland’s writing is too long to quote here in full, but to summarise:

The idea that free will does not stand up to modern scientific analysis has become an orthodox opinion in AI. It is widely believed that neurophysiological determinism means free will is an illusion. Since each of your decisions is the inevitable outcome of preceding causes, you can never choose contrary to the way you are caused to choose. How then can you be free?

To demonstrate the fallaciousness of this position, Copeland describes two kinds of choices: “nil preference” choices and “outstanding-candidate” choices.

Imagine you are torn between two options: whether to order a chocolate cake or a blueberry cheesecake. After a moment, you suddenly and for no apparent reason choose to order the cheesecake.

This is a nil preference situation. Free choice, in this situation, consists of making a random selection between two equally preferable alternatives. Determinism (in the form of your personal tastes, past experience, emotional state, etc.) narrows down your choice to two options, while the final selection is made randomly.

In a nil preference situation, and only in a nil preference situation, choosing randomly is choosing freely.

It could be argued that if decisions arise spontaneously and randomly, then the agent is helpless to control his own behaviour. However, in a nil preference situation, behaviour is still under the control of the agent. The chooser’s deliberations produce a number of alternative schemes of action, all of which are equally preferable to the agent. The random “coin flip” of choosing is merely a tiebreaker.

However, random selection only constitutes free will in a nil preference situation. In all other circumstances, conscious deliberation leads us to pick one particular course of action. This is an outstanding-candidate situation.

There is no room for randomness here. The agent’s choice is determined by their emotions, their reasoning, their memories, etc. They choose the best possible choice given their current knowledge. It would be possible for the agent to choose a course of action which they did not consider the best option, but not without some reason.

In this situation, given the laws of physics, determinism rules. Since it is impossible to violate the laws of nature, it would be impossible for the agent to decide on an option without that choice being the result of a causal chain. In fact, if some exterior force were to cause the agent to randomly pick an option against their own reasoning, then this would be the opposite of free will.

Say that after some deliberation, I choose to learn to play an instrument. Since this choice is caused by my emotions, reasoning, and so on, it is the inevitable result of the physical processes of my brain.

Some might argue that, since I cannot violate the laws of physics, I cannot choose other than to learn the instrument. But this is fallacious. It is within my power to choose otherwise, if I have some reason for doing so. I myself am a deterministic process, and my reasoning determines the choices that I make. This, in essence, is free will.

I am able to deliberate about my future and make decisions on the basis of that deliberation. If this is not freedom, then what is?

The Incompatibilist Fallacy

I suggest that incompatibilists – those who believe that free will is incompatible with determinism, and is therefore illusory – are labouring under the same fallacy that Daniel Dennett accuses David Chalmers of falling prey to.

When I think about my options, assess my emotions, recollect past experiences, follow a chain of reasoning and then make a choice, the feeling that I have that I am consciously choosing my own actions is not an illusion. That deterministic process is itself the process of volition.

Free will or volition is merely the sum total of all the psychological processes involved in making a choice. It is not some mystical, transcendent thing which exists above and beyond the deterministic processes of brain function.

Admittedly, the waters are muddied by the philosophical position of libertarianism, according to which it would be possible to make a different choice given the exact same set of causes: something which is clearly impossible. This false libertarian conception of free will is in the same category as Chalmers’ conception of consciousness and the hypothetical vitalist’s conception of life.

However, incompatibilists take this transcendent, libertarian idea of free will, and use it to argue that there is something delusional about the idea that we are freely choosing our own actions when we deliberate and make choices. This is a fallacy.

The Self

Numerous philosophers have argued that the concept of the self is intrinsically fallacious, while many modern psychologists and neuroscientists have argued that there is no room for the self in theories of mind and brain function.

Some arguments are based on a conception of the self as a homunculus – an inner being, living within the mind, who perceives the objects of consciousness and in doing so facilitates experience. This conception is fallacious, since postulating an inner being to explain perception leads to an infinite regress (what component inside the inner being leads that being to perceive?).

Other arguments against the self focus on the fact that the self is not reducible to its constituent parts. The Brahmin and Buddhist sage Nagasena, who lived around 150 BC, compared the self to a chariot. Nagasena reasoned that a chariot is built from a number of separate components, none of which is the essence of the chariot.

Similarly, he reasoned that the self does not exist, since there is no part of a person which can be pointed to as the essence of that individual. However, we can only accept that this implies there is no self if we also agree that there is no such thing as a chariot; in fact, we know that the word “chariot” is the name for a certain structure which is irreducible to its parts.

I could lose my legs and still be myself. Similarly, I could lose my arms and still be myself. I am still myself when I am not thinking, or when I have no emotion, or when I am asleep and possess no consciousness at all.

The fact that any one aspect of myself could be removed and yet still leave my self as the whole of what remains does not disprove my existence, it merely demonstrates that a whole cannot be reduced to its parts. Nagasena’s example is a critique of reductionism, not a critique of the self; the self is merely the sum total of an individual’s attributes.

More recently, Susan Blackmore has argued against the existence of the self, using arguments much like those above. We feel as if we are conscious beings experiencing a stream of thoughts, perceptions, emotions, etc., but when we attempt to look at the “self” experiencing these things, we can only find the stream of experience itself. Hence the self is an illusion.

Others have argued that the feeling we have of being an observer of experience comes from our memories (i.e., the fact that we remember our past actions and exhibit consistent behaviour), and thus the self is illusory.

The Non-Self Fallacy

I hold that these arguments are based on the same fallacy as incompatibilism. Just as determinist arguments against free will begin with the libertarian, physics-defying, transcendent conception of free will, arguments against the self begin with the idea that “I” am somehow distinct from my brain function: either an independent observer who does the actual experiencing, or some other transcendent part of the whole.

The fact that my sense of being a singular entity from one moment to the next is derived from my memories and the fact that I am a single, physical body does not somehow mean that sense is illusory. An individual’s self is the sum total of their physical and psychological attributes, in the same way that life is the sum total of biological processes, or free will is the sum total of all the psychological processes involved in making a choice.

Conclusions

I suggest that in all of the examples above, the illusory, transcendent concepts of life, consciousness, free will and the self are all primitive relics of our historical belief in souls. The soul was believed to be the animating force that separated live things from dead things. It was also believed to be the source of consciousness.

The soul was tied up with the belief that free will was a gift from god, setting man apart from the deterministic laws of the universe, and it was also true self of a person, merely housed in their physical body until the time of death.

In explaining the physical processes behind these various phenomena, science has demonstrated that they are not the result of a soul. But we have retained an aspect of this false belief system in the idea that this phenomena are in some way transcendent. In doing so, we are forced to falsely conclude that these phenomena are illusions.

This single fallacy underlies a great deal of misconceptions in philosophy of mind, and must be abandoned if we are to genuinely understand things like consciousness, free will and the existence of the self and appreciate them for what they are: integral parts of what it means to be a human being.

Copyright © Dan Haycock 2011. For similar articles and information about Dan’s book, Being and Perceiving, visit http://www.DanHaycock.co.uk or http://being-and-perceiving.weebly.com/

A common saying goes “A picture is worth a thousand words”. Similarly when a concept is explained along with practical explanations it is understood well and retained by the person for a longer duration. This fact was the foundation stone for the revolutionizing concept of sociodrama. This concept was first developed by Jacob L. Moreno. His idea was to resolve real life situations through a dramatic play. A group of individuals pick up a common problem and distribute the roles between the members. They set up the stage and enact the drama to communicate the message to a group, organization, community etc.

Sociodrama techniques are generally presented by a group of well trained professionals. It is a part of phycotherapy during which the professionals try to recreate a real life situation. The subjects are able to understand and relate to their role in a better way and can also try to correct it. Many of our normal day-to-day life situations can be handled well with the help of sociodrama techniques. Trained professionals are not really required in all the situations. We can adopt these practices to make learning more simple and easy. Cited below are few examples which explain how well sociodrama techniques can be used in our daily life.

Sociodrama Techniques and Class Room Teaching

Any concept is better explained through audio and visual medium rather than a simple explanation in the classroom. Abstract concepts also need to be correlated with some real life situations so that they leave a long lasting impact on the students. For example when a group of young kids have to be explained about healthy eating habits, a teacher can prepare a small skit involving a group of students. Each student can act like a vegetable or fruit and narrate its significance. This method will help students to understand better in a playful manner.

Sociodrama Techniques Help in Creating a Social Impact

Awareness of AIDS is very essential to the youth of today. Many people do not know the primary cause and means of transmission of this disease. An organization involved in an AIDS awareness campaign can explain the modes of transmission of AIDS through a drama. A person acting like an AIDS patient can explain the symptoms where as one acting like a doctor can tell when to raise an alarm. This dramatic method would create a social impact.

Involvement of Sociodrama Techniques in Professional Life

These techniques are used in a number of professions like during the training sessions given to marketing students or to the management trainees. A marketing person has to efficiently sell his product. He should make a customer feel that without his product he will miss something very important in his life. A customer may behave in different ways. This entire concept can be explained using sociodrama techniques where in one can act like a salesman and other students can act like customers. The salesman has to answer to all the questions posed by the customer and mould the customers’ opinion from negative to positive.

Training Sessions Given To the Policemen And Army-Men Through Sociodrama Techniques

People who chose these professions need to be tough, both physically and mentally, and be prepared to face any kind of odd situations. During their training sessions, they are actually made to conquer obstacles. An artificial situation is created where in a group is divided into two batches, one being the enemy for another. An artificial target is set which can be attained only after crossing the hurdles. This makes them to handle real life problems like a war or a terrorist attack.

Sociodrama Techniques Trains a Person To Meet Emergency

Calamities like flood, earthquake, fire etc can be well handled by the disaster management group after sufficient training. This training will be more successful with the help of sociodrama techniques. For example a simple fire drill tells people how to escape the situation of fire. They come to know about the emergency exits and also learn that it is safe not to use the lift during fire.

Summary

Many concepts are difficult to be explained with the help of black board, chalk and a duster. These concepts can be well explained with the help of sociodrama techniques. Learning becomes a pleasure and one becomes more interested in the topic. Many social issues can be resolved using these techniques. So let us implant these techniques in our daily life.

Anna Purna is a freelancer writing articles about her favourite interest, Health and Nutrition. She also works on home-based jobs. Before this, she has worked fulltime for about 2 and a half years in the annotation of Biological databases in various organizations. She holds a Post Graduate Degree in Biochemistry and a PG Diploma in Bio-informatics. For more information, please visit her website on http://purnasrinivas.webs.com.

Only the scientific method of dream interpretation discovered by Carl Jung accurately translates the meaning of the symbolic unconscious messages. I continued his work in order to prove this truth to the world, and in order to discover the dangerous anti-conscience that he couldn’t see.

Now that I managed to complete Jung’s arduous mission and simplify his complicated method of dream interpretation, everyone can discover the tremendous power of dreams. A dream is a letter sent by the divine unconscious mind in a symbolic form. The dream images are the unconscious words, while the dream story defines the unconscious intention. Each dream has primarily the power to cure your psyche. However, a dream can also give you information about the outside world.

The truth is that the power of a dream has no limits. A single dream can predict your future, and at the same time show you how to avoid suffering. The same dream that will help you predict the future development of your reality and show you how to prepare the positive future you desire, may also give you important information about other matters of your life.

A dream is a collection of images and scenes that have a symbolic meaning and help you solve all problems. The power of dreams is based on your contact with the divine guidance. The unconscious mind that produces your dreams shows you in each image something very important for your mental health, for your evolution as a human being, and for your happiness.

I will give you a few examples from dreams that belong to different online dreamers. I will post only a few dream scenes and the basic biographical details of each dreamer because I cannot publicly expose the dreamers who send me their dreams for a professional dream translation.

Dream: I see my husband is taking a shower. I am also in the bath room but it is unfamiliar bath. I think I was also taking shower, but in another shower in the same bathroom.

A 25-35-years old woman recently married.

Dream Translation:

The shower in dreams is a purification. This means that your husband was eliminating his sins.

The bathroom represents your sexuality.

The fact that it is not your regular bathroom but an unfamiliar bathroom means that you ignore your real sexuality.

You are having a shower in another shower of the same bathroom because you were purifying yourself too, but far from your husband.

This part of the dream indicates that you and your husband will keep purifying yourselves because both of you will have an affair. The fact that you are not having bath together but in separate showers indicates a separate sexual life.

In a few words, this dream is showing you that you won’t feel satisfied with your husband and he won’t feel satisfied with you.

If you’ll cheat on your husband, he will cheat on you. You both will have a relationship with someone else besides being married.

…………………………………………………………………………………………

This dream was a warning for the dreamer. She understood that she had to be loyal to her husband if she wanted to be respected.

The unconscious mind was giving her objective information about her relationship. It was showing her that she would have a false marriage if she would cheat on her husband. Her husband would do the same. Therefore, their marriage would be merely an obligation without real love and without confidence.

The power of this dream is quite visible. This dream scene prevented the dreamer from being immoral and superficial. She understood that she had to be serious and respect her husband.

Here is another example:

Dream: I saw that my mom was driving the car I was in and then I saw my uncle who passed away last year and who was mentally unstable.

A 35-45-years old man, unmarried.

Dream Translation:

The car in dreams represents your own life.

Since your mother is driving the car you are in, this means that your anti-conscience is driving your life. In other words, your worst, primitive conscience is deciding what you do in your life. Your mother in dreams represents your evil, immoral, and cruel anti-conscience. Since she is driving your life, this means that you are constantly controlled by the wild side of your conscience.

Your uncle who is mentally unstable is a part of your personality that is like him. You must be careful and follow dream therapy, without letting the worse parts of your personality control your behavior.
Since your uncle was already dead, this means that you are imitating his absurd behavior. His example cannot help you avoid becoming mentally ill like him because you already are mentally ill.

……………………………………………………………………………………………

This dream was a serious warning to the dreamer. He is already controlled by the wild side of his conscience. This means that he needs urgent psychotherapy.

Here is another example:

Dream: In classroom sitting in a desk that is much too small for me.

A 45-55-years old married woman.

Dream translation:

When you are in a classroom in dreams this means that you are studying the meaning of dreams and the meaning of life.

Since you are in a desk that is too small for you, this means that you are not in the right place.

The small desk indicates that this is a desk for children, and not for an adult like you. This means that you have to learn something that a child must learn (but you didn’t learn yet) so that you may evolve.

In other words, there are things about the meaning of life that you should have learned in the past but you didn’t understand. You have to learn them now, so that you may be able to learn a lot more in the future. This knowledge is missing.

……………………………………………………………………………………….

This dream is giving to the dreamer important information about her behavior and life. This simple dream scene already explains that the dreamer is immature and has a lot to learn, even though she is not a child. She should be a mature person, according to her age.

A single dream has the power to prevent suffering because it shows you the truth you cannot see. You are protected by the unconscious wisdom.

The unconscious mind criticizes your behavior, showing you the dangers that are threatening your mental health and your peace of mind. You must be humble and accept the unconscious criticism. This is how you will correct your mistakes and make new discoveries.

Christina Sponias continued Carl Jung’s research into the human psyche, discovering the cure for all mental illnesses, and simplifying the scientific method of dream interpretation that teaches you how to exactly translate the meaning of your dreams, so that you can find health, wisdom and happiness. Learn more at: http://www.scientificdreaminterpretation.com Click Here to download a Free Sample of the eBook Dream Interpretation as a Science (86 pages!).