Illusion is the Rotten-Thighed Whore

Psychological well-being is known to be intimately connected with the maintenance of certain illusions, or positively skewed distortions of reality. These illusions that help promote psychological health are routinely applied by the average person in the service of coloring perceptions of the self, others, and the larger group with which one identifies (e.g. culture). Social psychologists have accumulated a vast amount of evidence supporting the role of three specific illusions on increasing psychological well-being: unrealistically positive self-evaluations, exaggerated perceptions of control, and unrealistic optimism (Taylor & Brown, 1988). The literature also suggests that people with lower self-esteem and overall higher levels of depressive symptoms are typically less prone to using such illusions. This evidence begs for a careful analysis of the broader implications of apparently healthy self-deceit and its implications with regard to the basic goals of psychotherapy.

Although positive illusions have been shown to promote psychological well-being, there is also evidence that a loss of imagined hope for the future is associated with suicide risk (Beck & Weishaar, 1990; Conner, Duberstein, Conwell, Seidlitz, & Caine, 2001). In this respect, an illusory view of one’s future can be detrimental to psychological health when the illusion is no longer maintained. Should the goal of psychotherapy then be to cultivate positively skewed illusions in patients or to help them view their lives more realistically? Perhaps a more important question to ask is to what end do such positive illusions serve on a global scale in terms of human behavior. It could be for example, as Terror Management Theory (TMT; Greenberg, Pyszczynski & Solomon, 1986) research supports that the positive psychological effects of illusions on the individual also work to promote more violence towards others in the service of maintaining said illusions. One thing is for certain however; illusion is of paramount importance to the human animal. Indeed, in his book The Denial of Death (1973), Ernest Becker elaborates on the existential meaning of illusions in human life by stating the following:

‘Illusion’ means creative play at its highest level. Cultural illusion is a necessary ideology of self-justification, a heroic dimension that is life itself to the symbolic animal. To lose the security of heroic cultural illusion is to die (p. 189).

More...
The principle benefit of employing positive illusions in everyday life is witnessed in the self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, holding an exaggerated view of one’s ability in some domain can simultaneously decrease anxiety and increase self-confidence, which in turn boosts performance and thereby ensures the increased probability of confirming one’s positive bias with a successful outcome (e.g. better performance at a job interview). A similar type of self-fulfilling prophecy may also be employed in the service of maintaining a cultural illusion, in that a positive bias towards one’s cultural worldview can be reinforced when the culture defeats or gets one over on a rival (e.g. through war). To this end, Taylor and Brown (1988) argue that “faith in the inherent goodness of one’s beliefs and actions may lead a person to trample on the rights and values of others” (p. 204). Such a possibility seems to support the potentially less destructive effects of the depressive position with regard to the world at large. If positive illusions were much less commonplace, a good many people would then likely suffer from a lowered sense of psychological well-being, but alternatively would be less prone to inflicting harm on others.

An analysis of the research on illusion and mental health therefore leads to the conclusion of its likely being a double edged sword. Psychotherapy is but one area that should take heed of this. It would seem that the therapist’s job is in part to help the patient strike a balance of illusions. Clearly, self deception is necessary for effective psychological functioning, but too much reliance on self-deceit may have negative outcomes on the individual through the risks associated with the loss of illusion, and on the societal level through one’s relationships with different others. Positive illusions should thus be employed with the utmost caution.

References

Beck, A.T. & Weishaar, M.E. (1990). Suicide risk assessment and prediction. Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention, 11, 22-30.

Becker, E. (1973). The denial of death. New York: Free Press. Connor, K.R., Duberstein, P.R.,

Conwell, Y., Seidlitz, L. & Caine, E.D. (2001). Psychological vulnerability to completed suicide: A review of empirical studies. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 31, 367-385.

Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T. & Solomon, S. (1986). The causes and consequences of a need for self-esteem: A terror management theory. In R.F. Baumeister (E.D.), Public Self and Private Self (pp. 189-212). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Taylor, S.E. & Brown, J.S. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210.

(Updates I & II) Gunman kills six, including Fed judge. Congresswoman in critical condition. AZ Sheriff condemns hateful political rhetoric.

Today Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head along with several others by a gunman at an event at a Safeway in Tucson, Arizona. Right now I’m not going speculate as to the motives of the suspect, who has been described as being in his late teens or early twenties. But it sufficeth to say that given the toxic political atmosphere that has been generated over the last two years, you almost knew something like this was bound to happen.

ps: If I had to guess, I’d say this assassination has something to do with her support for the DREAM Act.

Update I

So much for my theory of an illegal-immigration-related motive for the shooter of Gabrielle Giffords.

It turns out the suspect is a 22 year old named Jared Lee Loughner. This is his YouTube channel. His videos are just slides of text, and an he seems to be big on “conscience dreaming,” whatever that means. Perhaps he means “conscious dreaming,” aka “lucid dreaming,” but who knows. The videos don’t make much sense but there isn’t much there that would have suggested he’d shoot up a Congressperson’s meet-and-greet or hurt anyone in general.

In one of his videos he encourages people to read the Constitution in order “to apprehend all the treasonous laws.” More interesting is this passage, which suggests Loughner is a US Army recruit:

Every United States Military recruit at MEPS [Military Entrance Processing Station] in Phoenix is receiving one mini bible before the tests.

Jared Loughner is a United States Military recruit at MEPS in Phoenix.

Therefore, Jared Loughner is receiving one mini bible before the tests.

I didn’t write a belief on my Army application, and the recruiter on the application wrote: None.

He concludes this video with a slide that reads:

In conclusion, reading the second United States Constitution, [sic] I can’t trust the current government because of the ratifications: The government is implying [sic] mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar.

No! I won’t pay debt with a currency that’s not backed by gold and silver!

No I won’t trust in God!

This guy loves syllogisms, though he doesn’t seem to know how to make one properly. The plain truth is that Loughner is either mentally ill or has the intellectual capacity of an eight year old. Either way, I don’t think there is a coherent motive to be gleaned here.

By the way, here are his favorite books according to his YouTube channel:

Animal Farm, Brave New World, The Wizard Of OZ, Aesop Fables, The Odyssey, Alice Adventures Into Wonderland, Fahrenheit 451, Peter Pan, To Kill A Mockingbird, We The Living, Phantom Toll Booth, One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest [sic], Pulp, Through The Looking Glass, The Communist Manifesto, Siddhartha, The Old Man And The Sea, Gulliver's Travels, Mein Kampf, The Republic, and Meno.

I wonder if any conservatives will dare seize on the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf listings in here. We’ll see if a person like Glenn Beck is shameless enough to link Loughner’s professed godlessness with Communism and Fascism in the same fell swoop. I’m going to show a little faith in Glenn and say he doesn’t touch it with a ten-foot pole, but I wouldn’t be totally shocked if I’m wrong.

Anyway, I’m following this story closely. It will be interesting to see what else about this lunatic comes to light.

Update II

Regarding Loughner’s YouTube claim about being a US Army recruit (see above), it turns out that he did in fact try to enlist, but was rejected.

Police say that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was the primary target of the shooter, believed to be 22 year old Jared Lee Loughner, although authorities are refusing to confirm the name at this point. Also, the authorities are saying Loughner (though, he was not mentioned by name) has a criminal history.

At a press conference, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said he was “not convinced” that the shooter acted alone and that they are currently looking for a “person of interest”—a white male in his fifties—who apparently arrived with the gunman at the Tucson Safeway.

What was most interesting about the press conference wasn’t any information that Dupnik disclosed about the case, but the fact than on at least three separate occasions he editorialized about the “vitriol” in America’s political discourse right now. Of his own state of Arizona he said,

I’d just like to say that when you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government, the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous. And unfortunately Arizona, I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry.

And also,

There’s reason to believe that this individual may have a mental issue. And I think that people who are unbalanced are especially susceptible to vitriol.

It seems to me that Sheriff Dupnik is under the impression that this “unbalanced” gunman was, on some level, influenced by the toxic political rhetoric that’s been going around in this country. Should it surprise anyone? In a nation of over 300 million people, we can’t be shocked when some whackjob takes seriously rhetoric about needing a revolution in America.

Speaking of vitriol and threats, one of the six dead from today’s shooting is US District Court Judge John Roll. According to the local authorities (who are working with federal agencies on this case), Roll was just “in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

However, like countless other public officials, Roll has been the recipient of numerous death threats. Such was the case when in February 2009 when he ruled that a $32 million lawsuit filed by sixteen illegal immigrants against an Arizona rancher who held them at gunpoint after he caught them trying to cross the US-Mexico border via his property. In July 2009 the Arizona Republic noted,

When Roll ruled the case could go forward, Gonzales said talk-radio shows cranked up the controversy and spurred audiences into making threats.

In one afternoon, Roll logged more than 200 phone calls. Callers threatened the judge and his family. They posted personal information about Roll online.

“They said, ‘We should kill him. He should be dead,’ “[US Marshal David] Gonzales said.

Roll, who is the chief federal judge in Arizona, said both he and his wife were given a protection detail for about a month.

In addition, several threats had already been made against Giffords, and her Tucson office was vandalized in 2010, hours after she voted in favor of health care reform.

****

I leave you with an excerpt from a most salient Associated Press story,

During his campaign effort to unseat Giffords in November, Republican challenger Jesse Kelly held fundraisers where he urged supporters to help remove Giffords from office by joining him to shoot a fully loaded M-16 rifle. Kelly is a former Marine who served in Iraq and was pictured on his website in military gear holding his automatic weapon and promoting the event.

“I don’t see the connection,” between the fundraisers featuring weapons and Saturday’s shooting, said John Ellinwood, Kelly's spokesman. “I don't know this person, we cannot find any records that he was associated with the campaign in any way. I just don’t see the connection.

"Arizona is a state where people are firearms owners—this was just a deranged individual,” Ellinwood said.

- Max

max.canning@gmail.com

The Stoic Psychologist

The following is an interview that I (Wolfgang) conducted in 2005 with the late psychotherapy pioneer, Albert Ellis. He is widely considered one of the three most influential psychologists of all time and was one of the founders of the now tremendously popular Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. His own particular brand of therapy is called Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy (REBT).

W: In “Sex Without Guilt,” you discuss the various reasons why Americans seem to be the most neurotic culture when it comes to sex. Although much has changed since 1966 when that book was published, sex education classes have remained similar, in that the emphasis is put on the dangers of sex without paying attention to the benefits. Could you briefly explain some changes that you would like to see implemented in sex education courses?

AE: The main thing is to tell the truth, to show them (youths) that sex has its dangers as everything does but that they can have a great deal of satisfaction and pleasure in intercourse, or in petting or anything, without the dangers. Therefore, they can enjoy it freely.

W: How, if at all can REBT help individuals with acute psychoses (e.g. schizophrenia)? For example, could a psychotic person use REBT to become significantly less disturbed by a hallucination?

AE: Normally psychosis is a matter of biology, so that they are born and raised disturbed and they are not going to change very much. You’re not going to talk them out of some of the schizophrenic ideas. So, you teach them, as we teach everybody, USA (Unconditional Self Acceptance). This teaches to accept yourself with your psychosis; to know that it is a handicap; to know that many people will criticize you for being psychotic, but still say I’m OK just because I am alive even though I have schizophrenia and am seriously disturbed. Then you’ll be able to not live as happy a life as other people, but you can still lead a quite happy life.

W: How do you define a vitally absorbing interest, and in your opinion, what degree of importance does having one play in your own mental health.

AE: Well, a vital absorbing interest means you pick something (art, science, music, etc) and you thoroughly get devoted to it, not obsessively or compulsively but thoroughly. You enjoy it just because you like it and you keep at it very often for the rest of your life. So, it helps distract you from all kinds of problems, but it gives you a meaning and a purpose. Your vital absorbing interest becomes a purpose and therefore it adds considerably to your life while other people without it don’t have as enjoyable of a time. You grow with it just because you’re absorbed in it and like it very much.

W: It is of my opinion that if the basic tenets and practices of REBT were preached nearly as much as that of the Bible, the world would be a much better place, or would at least be showing signs of significant improvement. That being said: Why has the public not substantially caught on to this rational and effective philosophy and therapy, and what steps would you like to see support this end in the future?

AE: Well, the Bible has some very good points such as the concept of accepting the sinner but not the sin, or as REBT calls it, Unconditional Other Acceptance. But, the Bible also has some pretty poor points. You damn people, you punish them, you send them into hell, etc. So therefore, I am naturally prejudice because I’m a nonbeliever, and I believe that people would be very much better off with the Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy than with the big biblical philosophy. I would like to see it tried, but I can be pretty sure that they wouldn’t be guilty, they wouldn’t be depressed, they wouldn’t be angry at other people, and they would be self accepting with the REBT philosophy. They might get some of that in the Bible, but they might not.

W: And what steps would you like to see taken to promote REBT in the future?

AE: I would like to see REBT taught in the school system, public and private from kindergarten or preschool on I would teach children Unconditional Self Acceptance (I can accept myself just because I’m alive), Unconditional Other Acceptance (I never hate other people, I just hate some of the things they do) and Unconditional Life Acceptance (The world is pretty rotten in many respects, but it’s not awful and horrible and I can still get a great deal of satisfaction out of it). Now, if every single child was taught that from preschool onward, they wouldn’t all get it, but a great many would get it and lead quite happy lives. They would lead much happier lives than they are presently, where they depress themselves with all kinds of anxiety, depression and horror.

W: In the past, your colorful use of profanity has certainly turned many people off. How would you respond to the notion that a professional-- certainly one of your stature-- should refrain from the use of foul language?

AE: Well, if they want to refrain let them refrain. I don’t force anybody to use my language and I don’t use it all of the time with everyone. But, I do use it with a great many people who know that I think it will do a lot of good. It is very direct, very honest, very frank, and people can see that there is no bullshit about it. Therefore, most people, much of the time, take to it and I think that anything a professional does that gets people to understand him/her and to get across to them better is beneficial. Therefore, I help people with my language and with other things such as writing that doesn’t have the language.

W: Why do humans seem to have considerable difficulty accepting the ultimate uncertainty of all the major philosophical and theological questions? Why is faith in an unfounded belief such a driving force in many peoples’ lives?

AE: Because people think they have to be safe, safe, safe, and if they had certainty then they would know everything and they would be safe. So they say: "I’d like some degree of certainty, security, or safety." That’s OK. But then they say: "I need absolute certainty all times under all conditions," and that’s impossible for anybody to have. So, by needing absolute certainty, they actually make themselves unsafe and follow all kinds of crappy ideas. So, we teach them that there is really no certainty because anything can change all the time. Therefore, you try to get a high degree of probability without needing certainty and then you do yourself pretty good.

W: In the interview cited in “The Road To Tolerance,” you stated that you have not had a miserable day since you created REBT in 1955. Has this remarkable streak continued up to the present day?

AE: Yes, I have unhappy days in the sense that something unfortunate happens. People sometimes object to me, fight me, or do me in actually. I don’t like that so I feel very sad, frustrated and annoyed. But I never, practically ever feel depressed, raging, or self hating. So in the sense of the usual major disturbances, I am not deliriously happy but I am not very unhappy either.

W: Also, please briefly explain your recent surgery and how you refrained from terribly upsetting yourself about it.

AE: Well, I had diarrhea and intestinal problems for about a year and it didn’t do me any good. But one day, when Debbie (his wife) fortunately was here, we called a doctor in on a Sunday and she didn’t think it was so bad until I started bleeding. So they got me to the hospital and within an hour or two they said I really needed to have an operation. So I said: "too bad, tough shit. Do it." So they performed the operation and I was in the hospital for the next several days unable to do very much and she (Debbie) slept over in the hospital and really took care of me and saved me from the nurses. After I got over it, I couldn’t travel very much because I had to have two nurses with me all the time. So that was a pain in the ass, but I was able to take it and do the best I could under difficult conditions and only again make myself healthfully sorry and regretful. I wish it hadn’t happened but it did. Too damn bad! So I still go on with life.

DJ: When you said I was protecting you from the nurses I think you mean from their neglect.

AE: That’s right.

DJ: He’s diabetic and they weren’t checking his blood often enough for the sugar level and he fell into a coma. He was so amazing. Within days of the major surgery after having his entire colon removed, he forced himself to write a little bit every day even though he was weak. Since then, he has written about six books.

W: One behavioral technique that is used in REBT is the shame attacking exercise. Could you provide an example of this experience as used in therapy?

AE: Well I invented it years ago when I was ashamed of doing things foolishly and getting rejected. I thought I was silly from a philosophical standpoint because if they reject me their not going to cut my balls off and their not going to shoot me. But, I didn’t get over it. So I deliberately did these things that I was ashamed to do because shame means self-downing. For example, I made myself go to cafeterias and ask for the check without having ordered anything. I also invented many other ironic ones where I instruct a male client to go to a drugstore and say: “I would like a gross of small condoms so they won’t fall off,” and help him not to feel ashamed afterward. I would have another client go up to a stranger on the street and say: “I just got out of the loony bin. What month is it?” and not feel ashamed. When they do these exercises and have the philosophy that: I do stupid things, but I am not a rotten shameful person, then they lose their anxiety and their depression and they function much better.

W: If you had to estimate, what percentage of people, if any, can cure themselves of a substantial neurosis (i.e. anxiety or depression), simply by reading and familiarizing themselves with the philosophy and practices of REBT without the use of a therapist?

AE: Well I believe that 90-100% can do it but they don’t because it’s too hard and they don’t follow it through. For instance, without a therapist’s support they might give themselves homework but not follow through with it. It is very hard to do given that the human condition is to be rather disturbed or neurotic. So, without a therapist, most of them can get somewhat better, but not as much better as they could get if they really forcefully, emotionally, vigorously and actively kept using the stuff in my self help books.

W: It seems to me that in today’s global situation, the various social evils that you name as intolerance, bigotry, absolutism, rigidity and fanaticism are still reigning supreme. Given that these social evils do not seem to be on the decline in today’s increasingly nuclear age; do you tend to hold an optimistic or pessimistic view of the fate of mankind?

AE: Well if we just let things go as they are right now I would be pessimistic. But, as I have said before, if we teach little children, adolescents and adults in businesses and organizations, even in the churches, the principles and practices of REBT, then I would take a very optimistic view. I would say that it would take a long time to reap the benefits and they will not all get it, but some will get it and teach others. The teachers will be able to teach the children and then the children will be able to teach the teachers. So in the long run I take an optimistic view if USA, UOA and ULA, which are taught in REBT, can be taught to practically everyone and will finally prevail.

W: If someone in the future were to publish a book called: “The Gospel According to St. Albert,” would you approve of or reject this title?

AE: Well, I would approve it because it is a humorous title. But I am not a saint. There is no St. Albert. I don’t think there is a St. anything. None of us are saints, but we are also not devils. We are fallible, screwed up humans who can un-saintly fight the nonsense that we are born with and that we learn, and get better and better and better.

W: In your writings, you blame many of society’s ills on the various types of fascists: including political, intellectual and sexual fascists. Briefly explain what you mean by intellectual fascists. Is there any particular place where these characters are usually found (e.g. academia)?

AE: Well an intellectual fascist not only puts others down, but puts him or herself up by being bright, attractive, informing, etc. So they say: “I’m a good person because I am so bright and capable,” and “You are a bad person because you’re not.” Therefore, whenever you act stupidly, I make you into a stupid person, and whenever you act incompetently, which at times you will, you are a totally incompetent person. So they culturally and actually use intellectual means of putting other people down for not being bright enough or talented enough. This is still a form of fascism or self downing and I call it intellectual fascism.

W: Well, I think that is about all the questions I have for you. Thank you so much for your time.

AE: It was my pleasure. I really enjoyed your questions. They made for a fun interview.

RIP Dr. Ellis

~Wolf

Ecstasy: A New Treatment For Psychological Trauma

Illustration of a veteran being saved from the debilitating effects of war trauma by the drug ecstasy.

Anyone who has ever taken the infamous club-drug ecstasy (MDMA) knows how the intoxicating effects of the substance can frequently lead to overwhelming feelings of “love” towards most things the user comes into contact with, which often includes things that are normally disliked and thus typically avoided. Although long-term abuse of this drug can certainly be dangerous, researchers are beginning to find that, when used appropriately, this “love drug” can also be an important medicine for helping alleviate symptoms of certain mental illnesses. Specifically, studies are beginning to find that MDMA in combination with psychotherapy can be an effective treatment for post-traumatic-stress-disorder (PTSD). It is important to note, however, that this groundbreaking work would likely be non-existent if not for the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), a non-profit research and educational organization which funds various projects that investigate the therapeutic applications of psychedelic drugs. The fact that their research has recently been featured on major news networks like CNN is a glowing testimony to both the medical legitimacy and social relevance of their work.

So how exactly does MDMA help treat PTSD? Well, in layman’s terms, the “loving” effect of the drug causes one to be much more emotionally open than normal. This increased access to emotions can be extremely helpful in the process of breaking through various resistances or psychological defenses, which is essentially the goal of most therapeutic interventions. The ability to break through resistances is especially important when working with PTSD, given that a major part of this malady is perpetuated by a seemingly hard-wired instinct to avoid unpleasant emotions (e.g., fear) related to the initial trauma. Ecstasy can help with this by assisting “people in confronting memories, thoughts and feelings related to the trauma without increasing either fear or avoidance in response to this confrontation. An increase in self-acceptance and increased feelings of closeness to others may also assist people with PTSD in forming a therapeutic alliance with psychotherapists.” This suggests that ecstasy has the unique potential to considerably expedite the process of normal psychotherapy. {For more info on possible biological explanations for ecstasy’s success in treating PTSD click here.}

Besides the obvious factor of the negative stigma attached to ecstasy, the FDA is in no rush to fund research on MDMA-assisted psychotherapy primarily because the pharmaceutical industry has no compelling (i.e., financial) interest in making MDMA into a prescription drug. The financial incentive is lacking because MDMA-assisted psychotherapy consists of only a few administrations of the drug “within the context of a time limited course of non-drug psychotherapy over three to four months (8).” Again, ecstasy is being shown as an effective treatment for PTSD after being administered on only a small number of occasions. In contrast, drugs that are currently accepted by the FDA for treating PTSD (e.g., Paxil) are big money-makers because they are prescribed for daily use over long periods of time, if not for life.

And so it goes with Big Pharma’s monopoly on medical treatment. Thank Yahweh for the good people at MAPS for actively challenging this retarded system.

Check out one of their new promos:

~Wolf

The Irrationality Of Rational Politics (The Political Brain Part 1)

Neuroscience and psychology research prove that voters do not appeal to reason and logic when choosing a candidate. Republicans fail to be surprised.

Scott Brown’s recent victory over Martha Coakley for the U.S. senate seat in Massachusetts is reminiscent of George W Bush’s two “victories” over equally impotent Democrats; both cases clearly demonstrate that voters do not appeal to logic and reason when selecting a candidate. In his book The Political Brain, renowned psychologist Drew Westen cites evidence from the fields of psychology and neuroscience indicating that “what passes for reasoning in politics is more often rationalization, motivated by efforts to ‘reason’ to emotionally satisfying conclusions” (xi). In other words, people usually rely on their emotional (gut) feeling about a candidate rather than actually giving a shit about what the person is going to do in office. This is how our brain works in relation to most things in our world. We like things based on our gut feelings about them, which are largely derived from the implicit (unconscious) activation of various bundles of thoughts and images, known as associative networks (3). The ability to strategically play to these associative networks is crucial to any successful political campaign. Unfortunately, recent history shows that the GOP is much more skilled at this game than the Democrats.

Whether they realize it or not, Republicans seem to have a more accurate understanding of how the brain actually works. They seem to have figured out intuitively what “the philosopher David Hume recognized three centuries ago: that reason is a slave to emotion.” Democrats, on the other hand, display an “irrational emotional commitment to rationality—one that renders them, ironically, impervious to both scientific evidence on how the political mind and brain work and to an accurate diagnosis of why their campaigns repeatedly fail” (15). This almost exclusive reliance on rationality leads Democrats to focus their campaign strategies on what actually appear to be quite insignificant things like “facts, figures, policy statements, costs and benefits, and appeals to intellect and expertise.” It is unfortunate that appeals to reason and intellect are insufficient to move voters, but this reality must be accepted by Democrats if they hope to win elections this fall. They should also familiarize themselves with the strategies Westen outlines in his book that describe how candidates can speak more to the emotional rather than the logical brain of voters.

Dr. Westen’s (among loads of other) research clearly demonstrates the overwhelming power of implicit associative networks. For example, in focus groups, the vast majority of people support universal health care plans, but only when the term itself is not explicitly referred to. When the exact same plan is then revealed to fall under the universal health umbrella, almost nobody supports it. Westen explains how this is due to the successful branding by the GOP of the term universal health care itself. For most Americans, simply hearing that term alone primes the implicit negative associations of “big and personal clinics, socialized medicine, and the idea of being separated from your doctor.” Westen advocates that Democrats do away with this term altogether in their public discourse for this very reason.

Another example of where Republicans have been extremely successful at employing negative branding strategies is in the association of Democrats with liberal elites, or ivory tower intellectuals that cannot possibly be in tune with mainstream America. So how exactly can Democrats combat this already successful branding of them by the GOP? Well, the most important thing a candidate can do is win over the (emotional) hearts and minds of the people. This is done most effectively when they are able to communicate a sense of passion through weaving together a coherent and emotion-laden narrative that plays on specific positive networks of association and/or directly combats negative associations.

The associative network that leads people to perceive Democrats as weak on national defense is yet another glaring example of a successful brand-job by the GOP, an association that Obama consistently concerns himself with trying to refute. Unfortunately, as it stands now, more or less maintaining the status-quo with national defense seems the only way that Obama and other Democrats feel they can quell this nasty association of them with big blubbering vaginas. If Democratic strategists paid more attention to Westen’s work, however, candidates might begin to counter this type of branding that all too often contributes to them losing elections.

In the following clip, Dr. Westen gives an example of what Democrats should have been saying all along in response to the claim that they do not support the troops (by favoring withdrawal). His example demonstrates how the Democrats should be stealing from the GOP playbook in order to win over the hearts and minds of the public by using passionate speech which appeals to the emotional rather than reasoning faculties of the brain.



References

Westen, Drew. The Political Brain: The Role Of Emotion In Deciding The Fate Of The Nation. Public Affairs: New York, 2007.

~Wolf

Existential Psychiatry: Can Doctors Really Understand Psychotic Patients?

A 'psychotic' reaction to being routinely misunderstood by psychiatrists

We have all had the experience of at least crossing paths with a psychotic person. The common response to being in the presence of such people is to shy away and basically do anything possible to avoid interacting with them; we like to pretend they don’t exist. Responding in this way is not necessarily something to be ashamed of though; it is an understandable reaction to encountering others who in many ways seem alien and thus somewhat frightening to us. If we have any compassion for these suffering people, however, we may like to take solace in the notion that there are many qualified psychiatrists that are trained to deal with this otherwise neglected segment of humanity. Unfortunately, the training that psychiatrists receive today is largely insufficient in preparing them to truly ‘understand’ their psychotic patients.

The current practice of psychiatry is almost completely dominated by what William James referred to as the “medical materialist” model. This model essentially consists of reducing the understanding of mental illness to observable symptoms, which are seen as indicative of some biological (mostly brain) pathology. In other words, deviant human experience, like that of the psychotic, is largely seen as indicative of an underlying pathology in the brain. Although this view has done a lot to advance our treatment of mental illness, relying on it exclusively has also done much to diminish the scope of clinical psychiatry. This focus on the “disease model” of mental illness effectively absolves psychiatrists from the responsibility of appreciating or really ‘understanding’ the subjective experience of their patients. Instead, the behavior and communication of the patient is reduced to being seen solely as a vehicle by which symptoms can be identified and then diagnosed according to orthodox methods. Not too long ago, however, psychiatrists often received training that was complementary to this model and that helped them to appreciate the humanness of the patient rather than seeing them as 'simply mad' expressions of some 'disease.'

Existential psychiatry, which came into prominence in the early 1960’s (of course), was in part a response to the problems inherent with biological psychiatry. Arguably one of the most influential figures involved with this movement was R.D. Laing, a Scottish psychiatrist who incidentally had some personal experience with bouts of psychosis. Laing’s basic premise was that the odd behavior and communication of psychotic individuals can often be understood as rational expressions of their peculiar subjective experience. Rather than operating from the orthodox method of observing patients in terms of identifying pathological symptoms of disease, Laing strove to understand the meaning behind his patients’ communications. In doing so, he helped open the doors to a more thorough understanding of madness, one where the madman’s perspective was actually taken into account.

Laing (1967) conceived the psychotic’s dilemma in social interactions to be representative of what he called “primary ontological insecurity,” a state characterized by a fear of engulfment and/or petrification by others, and the parallel fear of authentic self-disclosure. The psychotic person in this state is typically tormented by a conflict between the desire to reveal and the desire to conceal one’s self (Burston, 2000). Seen in this way, the bizarre communication of psychotic individuals is made more intelligible.

In his classic book, “The Divided Self,” (1960) Laing describes the existential psychiatric approach to observing patients, which offers an alternative perspective to interpreting the communications of psychotic individuals. My favorite example from this book is Laing’s critique of the observations made by Emil Kraeplin (the father of modern biological psychiatry) of a schizophrenic patient who was being put on display in front of a lecture hall full of psychiatrists in training. I will now quote at length from this text (pp. 29-31) in order to provide a vivid depiction of the differences between the two approaches to understanding psychotic behavior.

“Here is Kraeplin’s (1905) account to a lecture-room of his students of a patient showing the signs of catatonic excitement:


‘The patient I will show you today has almost to be carried into the room, as he walks in a straddling fashion on the outside of his feet. On coming in, he throws off his slippers, sings a hymn loudly, and then cries twice (in English), “My father, my real father!” He is eighteen years old, and a pupil of the Ober-realschule (higher-grade modern-side school), tall, and rather strongly built, but with a pale complexion, on which there is very often a transient flush. The patient sits with his eyes shut, and pays no attention to his surroundings. He does not look up even when he is spoken to, but he answers beginning in a low voice, and gradually screaming louder and louder. When asked where he is, he says, “You want to know that too? I tell you who is being measured and is measured and shall be measured. I know all, and could tell you, but I don’t want to.” When asked his name, he screams, “What is your name? What does he shut? He shuts his eyes. What does he hear? He does not understand; he understands not. How? Who? Where? When? What does he mean? When I tell him to look, he does not look properly. You there, just look! What is it? What is the matter? Attend; he attends not. I say, what is it, then? Why do you give me no answer? Are you getting impudent again? How can you be so impudent? I’m coming! I’ll show you! You don’t whore for me. You mustn’t be smart either; you’re an impudent, lousy fellow, such an impudent, lousy fellow I’ve never met with. Is he beginning again? You understand nothing at all, nothing at all; nothing at all does he understand. If you follow now, he won’t follow, will not follow. Are you getting still more impudent? Are you getting impudent still more? How they attend; they do attend”, and so on. At the end, he scolds in quite inarticulate sounds.’


Kraeplin notes here among other things the patient’s ‘inaccessibility’:


‘Although he undoubtedly understood all the questions, he has not given us a single piece of useful information. His talk is…only a series of disconnected sentences having no relation whatever to the general situation’ (Kraeplin, 1905)."


Laing now offers his interpretation of the patient’s behavior:


“Now there is no question that this patient is showing the ‘signs’ of catatonic excitement. The construction we put on his behavior will, however, depend on the relationship we establish with the patient…What does the patient seem to be doing? Surely he is carrying on a dialogue between his parodied version of Kraeplin, and his own defiant rebelling self. ‘You want to know that too? I tell you who is being measured and is measured and shall be measured. I know all that, and I could tell you, but I do not want to.’ This seems to be plain enough talk. Presumably he deeply resents this form of interrogation which is being carried out before a lecture-room full of students. He probably does not see what it has to do with the things that must be deeply distressing him. But these things would not be ‘useful information’ to Kraeplin except as further ‘signs’ of a ‘disease’.

Kraeplin asks him his name. The patient replies by an exasperated outburst in which he is now saying what he feels is the attitude implicit in Kraeplin’s approach to him: What is your name? What does he shut? He shuts his eyes…Why do you give me no answer? Are you getting impudent again? You don’t whore for me? (i.e., he feels that Kraeplin is objecting because he is not prepared to prostitute himself before the whole classroom of students) and so on…such an impudent, shameless, miserable, lousy fellow I’ve never met with…etc."

In this example, Laing is simply pointing out the different ways that this patient’s behavior can be interpreted, which is analogous to the visual illusion where either a vase or a face can be seen depending on one’s perspective. In this case, the patient’s behavior can be regarded as ‘signs’ of a ‘disease’ (i.e., Kraeplin’s and modern psychiatry’s approach) or as an expression of his existence (i.e., Laing’s existential approach). “The existential-phenomenological construction is an inference about the way the other is feeling and acting. What is the boy’s experience of Kraeplin? He seems to be tormented and desperate. What is he ‘about’ in speaking and acting in this way? He is objecting to being measured and tested. He wants to be heard” (Laing, 31).

The existential-phenomenological approach to psychiatric observation that Laing is promoting here should be used in psychiatry to complement orthodox methods. Neither approach should be used exclusively; important information is lost whenever doing so. It is vitally important, however, that Laing’s methods be more appreciated by mainstream psychiatry. The psychotic experience cannot be adequately conceived outside of the relationship between the psychotic individual and those around him/her. The current psychiatric approach to dealing with psychotics combined with the effects of institutionalization only serve to exacerbate the patient’s feelings of being viewed as an unintelligible, almost “alien” being by those with the authority to “treat” them. The exclusive reliance on this method of “treatment” is thoroughly reprehensible. It is high time for the profession of psychiatry to broaden its narrow perspective.

References

Burston, D. (2000). The Crucible of Experience: R.D. Laing and the Crisis of Psychotherapy. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Laing, R.D. (1960). The Divided Self. London: Tavistock Publications. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1990.

http://laingsociety.org/colloquia/psychotherapy/laing.heaton.htm

http://hugesponge.blogspot.com/

~Wolf

Unhealthy Discharge- Good Vs. Bad Orgasms

Free from her protective armoring, this creature can now achieve the elusive full-body orgasm.

There is little doubt that most human beings view the achievement of orgasm as the desired conclusion to any successful sex act. As such, we typically qualify encounters wherein both partners reach climax as “good sex,” or at least good-enough sex. Given that approximately 98% of males and females between the ages of 18-65 seem to agree that having a reasonable amount of good sex is conducive to maintaining proper mental hygiene, it is no wonder that orgasms are so important to us. Could it be, however, that there is such a thing as “bad orgasms,” i.e., orgasms that are actually detrimental to mental health, or at the very least not at all therapeutic? Well, according to Wilhelm Reich, the once highly controversial psychoanalyst (and self-proclaimed discoverer of orgone energy), the ability to have unhealthy orgasms is not just a sad reality, but one that is far too commonly experienced in average sex relations.

Psychoanalysis, beginning with Freud, had always identified a link between neuroses and sexual problems. Freud's concerns in this area were largely tied to the physical problems he witnessed in the sexual functioning of his patients, which included both the inability to achieve or maintain the required sexual apparatus (i.e., an erection for males and natural lubrication for females), and the inability of both genders to reach climax. If a patient presented with either of these clear-cut signs of impotence, it was usually considered a symptom of some underlying psychic disturbance (neurosis). Physical signs of impotence were expected to be found in neurotics and a lack of such symptoms was usually considered a positive indicator of mental health. Reich dared to venture beyond these relatively simplistic psychoanalytic notions in his explorations into the world of human sexuality. Inspired by years of clinical work, he noticed that many of his neurotic patients were perfectly able to complete the sex act in commonly prescribed ways (i.e., without displaying the aforementioned signs of physical impotence), but who were nonetheless hindered in their ability to experience what he thought were healthy orgasms.

Reich observed, for example, that many of his male patients, most of whom were physically quite virile, were still unable to derive satisfaction from their orgasms. Even so, most of these men tended to boast about their sexual conquests, such as being able to perform many times in one night, successfully bedding many partners, etc, etc. When he then began to analyze the fantasies these men displayed in association to their sexual forays, he found that they were often pathological in nature. The goal of the sex act for these men was often to prove their virility, to conquer or rape a woman, and/or to make up for a feeling of inferiority (Cattler, 29). In contrast, he found that his female patients were often reluctant to engage in sex, experienced tremendous anxiety and guilt about their sexuality, and those with masochistic tendencies exhibited rape fantasies (29). Essentially, Reich noticed that his patients attached all sorts of fucked up meanings to the sex act.

The neurotic fantasies attached to sex that Reich analyzed in his patients were found to be responsible for inhibiting their ability to achieve healthy orgasms. This makes complete sense when one considers the behavior of people who are now colloquially referred to as sex addicts. Ejaculation and orgasm for these folks is never met with real satisfaction. One might imagine this phenomenon as akin to the act of injecting heroin, which is often identified by users as being more pleasurable than their best orgasms and sexual experiences. The point is, neither the brief euphoria induced by the rapid intoxicating effects of junk, nor the neurotic ejaculations Reich describes are capable of leading to any kind of real satisfaction or release. In fact, he asserts that both acts can easily cause a deterioration in mental health.

A neurotic individual unknowingly boasting about his ability to have bad orgasms.

Unfortunately, for those individuals who habitually engage in what Reich considered neurotic sex, there is likely no quick fix to the problem. One would likely have to go through extensive therapy in order to dissolve a sufficient amount of “character armor” (neurotic fixations) before being able to achieve what Reich classified as healthy orgasms. The ability to achieve “full orgasm,” or what Reich called “orgiastic potency,” is achieved by attaining complete surrender to the flow of the sex act, without any inhibition. Neurotic people are unable to achieve this, and, according to Reich, most people never mature to the level necessary of achieving orgiastic potency. So how do we know if our orgasms are healthy or not? Again, common understandings of sexuality typically make no differentiation between healthy and unhealthy sexual release. Reich, however, described in some detail the difference between normal (unhealthy) and "full" (healthy) orgasms.

According to good old Wilhelm, there are four preconditions that must be met in order for two partners to achieve healthy orgasms together: (1) both partners must love each other and be able to express this love; (2) the individuals should ideally be free of neurotic character armor, which allows for involuntary muscular movements to occur before climax; (3) partners should engage in a style breathing that is deep, full, and pleasurable; and (4) shortly before orgasm, both parties should experience deep, delicious current-like sensations running up and down their bodies. It is notable that Reich’s fourth characteristic of the healthy orgasm appears similar to the so-called “full-body orgasm” often referred to by practitioners of tantric sex. Furthermore, his emphasis on deep breathing during coitus also bares a similarity to tantric-style intercourse, or at least to sex acts that incorporate meditative exercises. 

Could it be that Reich was advocating the practice of tantric sex over the usual hot-and-heavy monkey sex most of us are used to without ever realizing it? Perhaps he was aware of the connection but decided not to cite it for some reason. Either way, it is clear that he thought neurotics were unable to reach these levels of sexual contact and orgasm without having first rid themselves of a sufficient amount of character armor. (For an excellent introduction to Reich's therapeutic techniques and theories, please do yourself a favor and devour the first half of his book, "Character Analysis.") Until then, the orgasms of your average joe neurotic will be confined to the genital area, rendering Reich's recommended full-body orgasms nearly impossible to attain.

So what use can we make of Reich’s orgiastic potency theory? Was he onto something with these descriptions of "full orgasms" and in his advice for attaining them, or was he merely spewing copious amounts of useless jizzm into the world of ideas? Well, it does seem hard to argue with his contention that the quality of the relationship between sex partners (i.e., the ability to love and express love openly) is an extremely important precondition to enjoying a fully satisfying roll in the hay. Those who argue that emotional connection and openness is not required to experience mind-blowing sex are not necessarily wrong, and I think Reich would agree. He would, however, contend that this type of sex act is not charged with orgiastic potency and is therefore simply not able to produce the "full orgasms" he advocates for. Reich pointed out that partners have to be sufficiently comfortable with each other in order to facilitate the act of “letting go,” or surrender to the sexual experience. Maybe 'love' is not necessary for this to occur, but it seems clear that some type of strong emotional connection is essential to this process. 

Sex acts such as drunken one night stands, random trips to a brothel, and masturbating to furry BDSM porn are unlikely to culminate into a “full orgasm.” Even the female ejaculating porn stars that appear to be erupting in a frenzied moment of pure, unadulterated ecstasy might not be getting the release Reich talks about. As long as said porn star is attaching neurotic meanings to the sex act, which could stem from all sorts of early experiences (e.g., trauma of many varieties), her orgasms are destined to be of the less healthy variety. Just like the addict who adds a layer of scar tissue over the original wound with every fix, neurotically generated orgasms do not improve ones mental functioning. Both can easily lead to psychic pain rather than the intended pleasure initially sought through the act.

The inconvenient truth is that most of us are riddled with restrictive character armor and we cannot help but let this seep into our sex lives. Furthermore, most people are not even aware of or interested to learn about the more sophisticated aspects of sexuality that are ripe for experimentation; practices that just might be capable of transcending the typical monkey-sex paradigm of genital excitation and release. Reich suggested that our mental health is significantly improved by engaging in higher-order sexual practices that can potentially lead to “full orgasms.” He also believed that neurotic sex (the most common type) does absolutely nothing to improve our mental health, even when it is not overtly hurting us. Now granted, many of Reich’s ideas are a bit off the wall, but it couldn't hurt to experiment with his orgasm theories. At the very least, reading Reich should prompt us to more fully investigate the quality of our sex lives, and perhaps even encourage us to be more honest with ourselves about it.

References

Cattler, Michael. The Life and Work of Wilhelm Reich. Horizon Press, 1971.

Reich, Wilhelm. Character Analysis. http://wilhelmreichtrust.org/character_analysis.pdf

http://www.sonoma.edu/users/d/daniels/reichlecture.html

~Wolf

E Prime- Enhance Your Reality By Tweaking Your Language

Hi, my patients call me Dr. Shapiro and my mother named me Jim. I currently choose to identify as an alcoholic. (Typical greeting given by an E Prime speaker at an AA meeting)

Like it or not, language creates our realities. In a sense, it forces us all to subscribe to a particular brand of reality fundamentalism. Perhaps the biggest culprit behind languages ability to dogmatize reality is the vicious verb “to be,” which creates what Alfred Korzybski (General Semantics) called the “is of identity.” We all have a tendency to brand things in our universe by saying that something is something else (e.g., the book is blue and square-shaped, Jake and Mike are feminine nincompoops, Jesus is my lord and savior, etc). Whenever we use the verb “to be” we are making an assumption about the absolute nature of something in our environment. This gives us comfort by providing a stable, unchanging view of reality, which allows us to cease having to question the validity of our perceptions. For those of us who prefer to experiment with life, however, it may be wise to heed Korzybski’s advice to abolish the “is of identity” from our language as much as possible. This form of language that lacks the verb “to be” is called E (English) Prime.

Here are some examples of sentences translated from Standard English into E Prime taken from Robert Anton Wilson’s book, “Quantum Psychology:”

SE: The photon is a wave.
EP: The photon behaves as a wave when constrained by certain instruments.

SE: The photon is a particle.
EP: The photon appears as a particle when constrained by other instruments.

SE: John is unhappy and grouchy.
EP: John appears unhappy and grouchy in the office.

SE: John is bright and cheerful.
EP: John appears bright and cheerful on holiday at the beach.

SE: The car involved in the hit-and-run accident was a blue Ford.
EP: In memory, I think I recall the car involved in the hit-and-run accident as a blue Ford.

SE: That is a fascist idea.
EP: That seems like a fascist idea to me.

SE: Grass is green.
EP: Grass registers as green to most human eyes.

As you can see, the use of E Prime abolishes absolutistic thinking and preserves the subjectivity of our perceptions, which seems like the best method for arriving at the clearest description of our reality. Wilson uses the first two examples as a case in point. He points out the fact that physicists have observed photons appearing as both waves and particles depending on the instruments used in the observation. Naturally, these scientists largely divided into two camps: those who thought photons were actually waves and those who thought they were actually particles. The paradox was that both could be true depending on the instruments used. When grappling with this conundrum, others concluded that since photons really can appear as both waves and particles they cannot be either of those things, and, therefore must be something else for which there was no name yet (some proposed adopting the term wavicle). When tweaking your language system to incorporate E Prime, however, this problem presents no contradiction whatsoever. That a photon behaves as a wave when constrained by certain instruments and as a particle when constrained by other instruments is not regarded as anything especially peculiar. When using Standard English, however, trying to fully comprehend the implications of this contradictory proposition could potentially lead to complete mental collapse.

Getting rid of that seemingly innocuous little “to be” verb can forcefully pry open the doors of our perception. It seems that learning to write and speak in this manner can serve as a valuable intellectual endeavor that enriches and broadens one’s horizons. Why then is E Prime virtually unheard of in the scientific community? The easy answer seems to me that scientists are just as prone to absolutistic thinking as those wacky people of faith. The whole scientific enterprise presents itself as a quest to find out what is objectively true in our universe. To get rid of the “is of identity” would mean to deny that scientific evidence can prove anything as pure fact. It would also call into question the absolute legitimacy of the scientific method as the best tool for acquiring knowledge.

It appears to me that we like the word ‘is’ and its correlates so much because we crave stability in our lives. We want to trust that our perceptions are accurate representations of some objective reality that exists independent of our interpretation. {The fox is red, not auburn goddamn it! I am a happy-go-lucky person for Christ’s sake! There is a God and He is great! There is no God and certainly no eternal soul! }These are just more common examples of how we routinely employ the “is of identity” in our daily lives. At the very least, the exercise of removing this verb from our language will likely help us become more skeptical of some of our rigid beliefs about the world around us.

I have drawn but one conclusion from my preliminary investigations with using E Prime: we as humans appear afraid of, and therefore resist being open to investigating our world too much. We fear the consequences of thoroughly questioning the validity of our reality tunnel perhaps because we are afraid of the potential for complete and utter mental deterioration. There may be some validity to that fear though, which is why there is nothing wrong with staying in our respective reality tunnels. We can still, however, acknowledge that what we believe to be true can only really be considered true within our limited perspectives of reality. This seems to me a worthy start to operating in the spirit of what E Prime is all about.

I encourage those interested in E Prime to read more about it and to experiment with its use in your daily life. A word of caution though: excessive use of E Prime language in the public sphere will almost certainly cause others to view you with considerable suspicion and may result in a commitment to a psychiatric hospital. Remember, most feeble brains do not seem wired to compute the changes that are encouraged by the use of E Prime, so tread lightly at first.

(This essay was largely written in E Prime. The "is of identity" was italicized when used to enunciate the flimsy nature of the verb "to be.")

-Wolf

Symbolic Immortality- Humanity's Common Bond and Worst Enemy

Life is indeed a constant flight from death.

Every person is destined to die, and as human beings, we are unique in our intimate awareness of this stark fact. The truth is, however, that if we were always fully conscious of the fragility of life and our impending demise, we would be rendered unable to cope with life; effectively becoming paralyzed by overwhelming anxiety and terror. In order to avoid this most unpleasant experience, we repress our fears of death, in part by absorbing ourselves in things that provide us with a sense of meaning and purpose. In this way, we can quite effectively coast through life, almost entirely unaware of how this tremendous existential dilemma affects us on an unconscious level. In his Pulitzer-prize winning book, “The Denial of Death,” Ernest Becker (1973) demonstrated how man must continually seek to repress and deny the awareness of death by cultivating his own systems of symbolic immortality. In the mid 1980’s, three social psychologists began studying Becker’s ideas in the laboratory, eventually culminating in what is now known as Terror Management Theory (TMT; Greenberg, Solomon, & Pyszczynski, 1986).

The fundamental hypothesis of Terror Management Theory (TMT) is that repression of mortality awareness is accomplished by two primary mechanisms; having faith in a particular cultural worldview (or shared conception of reality) and self-esteem striving (see e.g., Greenberg, Solomon, & Pyszczynski, 1997; Pyszczynski, Greenberg, Solomon, Arndt, & Shimmel, 2004, for reviews). Cultural worldviews imbue the psyche with a sense of meaning by providing explanations for existence, standards of acceptable behavior, and the potential to transcend physical death; either symbolically, through contributing to something greater and more enduring than one’s self (e.g., a nation, political ideology, family), or literally, by having faith in an afterlife (Arndt & Vess, 2008). TMT sees cultural worldview defense as essential to the establishment and maintenance of self-esteem, which also serves to buffer basic existential concerns. To date, an impressive body of evidence has lent support for the roles that self-esteem and worldview defense play on attenuating mortality concerns.

The bulk of TMT research is based on the mortality salience hypothesis, which contends that reminding people of their own death will lead them to increase their defense of certain cultural beliefs and their willingness to meet certain standards of behavior. Here is a typical example of how TMT studies are conducted: participants are first exposed to a mortality salience prime (e.g., writing a paragraph about their own death, watching video clips with death related stimuli, answering questionnaires that prime thoughts of death), then, engaged in a distraction task (which allows for conscious mortality concerns to be suppressed); and lastly, asked to complete a measure designed to assess cultural worldview defense (Arndt, Greenberg, Pyszczynski, & Solomon, 1997). One series of studies that has been particularly well reported in the literature has had participants answer two open-ended questions about their death, followed by an evaluation of other people who either threaten or support their worldview (e.g., Greenberg, Simon, Pyszczynski, Solomon, & Chatel, 1992). Results from these studies indicate that participants who are reminded of death (experimental group) demonstrate increased worldview defense (compared to those in the control group that are not primed with death), as witnessed by more positive evaluations of others who support their beliefs and more negative evaluations of those who challenge those beliefs (Arndt, Goldenberg, Greenberg, Pyszczynski, & Solomon, 2000). These findings reveal both the positive and negative aspects of death-denial. Although clinging to worldview defenses can produce such positive effects as boosting self-esteem, it can also make individuals more prone to react negatively toward different others. In fact, a slew of other TMT studies have shown directly that, when reminded of death, people are significantly more prone to act with hostility towards those who do not share their cultural beliefs.

We all know how the 9/11 attacks led to nauseating displays of flag-waving in this country. It was, in effect, the perfect terror management experiment conducted on a massive scale. After the citizens of this country were reminded of their mortality, they could not help but display glowing pride in our nation and also the simultaneous desire to destroy some common enemy that threatened their worldviews. Patriotism is just one example of something that provides people with a sense of symbolic immortality. Feeling patriotic with regard to American values, for example, enables people to immerse themselves in a part of a greater whole, a whole that is much larger and certainly more enduring than their individual existences. When we are reminded of death, those with differing worldviews (e.g., Muslims, Zoroastrians, the French, etc) are all viewed with more open hostility. After all, if people have faith in a particular model of reality, than any disparate conceptions of the world only serve to threaten the legitimacy of their beliefs. In the most extreme cases, they become willing to give up their physical lives in order to maintain the symbolic immortality structures they have built.

It seems that Becker was right after all.

~Wolf

References

Arndt, J., Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Solomon, S. (1997). Subliminal exposure to death-related stimuli increases defense of the cultural world view. Psychological Science, 08, NO 5.

Arndt, J., Goldenberg, J. L., Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (2000). Death can be hazardous to your health: Adaptive and ironic consequences of defenses against the terror of death. In J. Masling & P. Duberstain (Eds.), Psychoanalytic perspectives on sickness and health (Vol. 9, pp. 201-257). Washington D.C: American Psychological Association.

Arndt, J., & Vess, M. (2008). Tales from existential oceans: Terror management theory and how the awareness of death affects us all. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2/2, 909-928.

Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Solomon, S. (1986). The causes and consequences of a need for self-esteem: a terror management theory. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Public self and private self (pp.189-212). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Greenberg, J., Simon, L., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S, & Chatel, D. (1992). Terror management and tolerance: Does mortality salience always intensify negative reactions to others who threaten one's worldview? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 212-220.

Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., & Pyszczynski, T. (1997). Terror management theory of self-esteem and social behavior: Empirical assessments and conceptual refinements. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 61-139). New York: Academic Press.

Pyszczynksi, T., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Arndt, J., & Schimel, J. (2004). Why do people need self-esteem?: A theoretical and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 435-468.

Excessive Happiness Disorder

Are you as happy as this horse all of the time? If so, seek medical treatment immediately.

Do you know someone who by all appearances seems excessively happy all of the time? Do you consistently get annoyed when in the presence of such a person? If so, then you have already become well acquainted with the havoc that people with E.H.D. (Excessive Happiness Disorder) can wreak on the lives of those that have to deal with them. Any person who consistently displays behavior indicative of being highly cheerful, exuberant, giddy, or just plain content with life may be suffering from EHD. Although often misdiagnosed, EHD should not be confused with more severe psychiatric illnesses such as Bipolar Disorder, which is characterized by extreme mood swings. In contrast, people with EHD maintain a consistently elevated mood and never suffer from periods of depression. The key diagnostic feature that identifies EHD is the person’s profound sense of denial with regard to the reality that much of life is suffering. The denial is often so extreme that people can consistently maintain a chipper disposition and effectively go through life without ever experiencing strong negative emotions. In such cases, it is the loved ones of the person with EHD that incur the most pain.

I have often reflected on the intriguing phenomenon of excessive (or insufferable) happiness, long before it became identified as a legitimate psychiatric diagnosis. Years ago, while working the overnight shift at a local hospital, I often had the displeasure of coming into consistent contact with someone that would now likely be diagnosed with EHD. Every morning at 7am when I was gearing up to leave work, Jane, the human resources director, would cross my path. Then, with a beaming, yet completely unwholesome smile, she would say: “Goooooooood Mmmooooorrrnnning” in a high-pitched and infinitely annoying voice before continuing on her way. Waves of disgust and the pangs of anger would always flush over me after witnessing this site every morning. Why was I having this negative reaction to such a seemingly pleasant person? For the longest time, I thought it was some flaw in my own character that was to explain this curious phenomenon. I knew myself to be a person inclined toward the pessimistic and depressive side of things, so I figured I must really be angry about having to face the fact that this person appears to have something positive, something I most certainly lacked. This reasoning, however, did little to curb the unpleasantness of seeing this woman consistently at the crack of dawn. In order to make myself feel at least slightly better about my intense reactions to her, I assumed that she really could not possibly be this happy and that she must be masking some hideous secret that confronts her everyday when alone gazing in the mirror. It was not until Jane made a certain comment at a staff meeting that I began to see things differently. This is when I first suspected that her issue was more severe than I had thought.

The staff meeting was really a class designed to teach the employees about proper stress management. My co-workers and I were asked to identify certain things in our lives (both in and outside of the work environment) that triggered stress for us. The leader of the group then went around the room and asked everyone individually to talk about the stressors we had just identified. When it was Jane’s turn to share, she promptly disclosed that she does not encounter any stressors whatsoever! She was, in effect, claiming that she lives a 100% stress-free existence! Of course, she also made this comment while displaying her characteristic shit-eating grin on her face. I was infuriated and instantly started having fantasies of strangling her to death. Here was a woman pushing 60 years of age that seemed comfortable admitting that she has some inhuman capacity to avoid becoming flustered or upset by anything in her life. That was the moment I became aware of the depths of denial that had to be working in order for her to maintain the abnormal sense of cheeriness.

Thankfully, I only had to deal this woman infrequently in the workplace. Imagine, however, that someone you loved or had regular daily dealings with suffered from this condition. It can be enough to drive anyone mad. This is why it is so important for those suffering from EHD to seek treatment immediately. Unfortunately, those suffering from this condition are often in extreme denial and, as such, typically blame others for being jealous of their seemingly natural happiness. They fail to see the damage that their condition creates for those around them. The denial at work with these individuals is so extreme that they simply cannot comprehend the fact that proper mental health really lies in a balance between experiencing positive and negative emotions. They are essentially blind to the reality that life is not super-duper every second of every day.

If you suspect that you or someone you love may be afflicted with EHD, you should contact a psychiatrist or mental-health professional about seeking proper treatment. If you still do not believe that EHD is a legitimate mental disorder, please watch this informative clip.

~Wolf