We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
The OWS movement embodies certain qualities which we don't seem to fully understand. It's neither a generational or an issue-driven movement. It lacks solutions. It has no direction or focus. There is a reason for this, defined many years ago by Eric Hoffer.
Hoffer was skeptical of mass movements, feeling they epitomized juvenile behaviors. He was able to determine why, pointing to a lack of self-esteem which the protesters exhibited. Hoffer felt self-esteem was critical in the development of adult behaviors. He outlined how widespread affluence and the rapid changes in modern society lead to a desire to attain adulthood more quickly, but with certain rites of puberty being shortchanged, particularly with regard to work and endeavor.
In his view an extended adolescence led many to seek outlets for their inability to define themselves. These people, lacking in self-identity, defined themselves as they saw themselves described by others. There was an intense self-loathing and guilt regarding position and place. This was a direct result of low self-esteem. Self-esteem was not being cultivated as many of those in protest movements didn't work, and were incapable of understanding their responsibilities. From this perspective, all mass movements were interchangeable, regardless of what they sought to promote.
Self-esteem and self-contempt have specific odors; they can be smelled. ~Eric Hoffer
As he points out, this nonsense led indirectly to the terrible child abuse "hidden memory" epidemic which destroyed many peoples' lives before finally being fully discredited.
We may now have scores of sophisticated books written by highly esteemed PhDs and a well-tread, lollipops over Castor oil, time-outs over spankings parenting path, but our progressive march through human history has ultimately produced adults that are… well, still childish.
Worse, we’ve managed to add an extra decade to adolescence.
Of course, people still commit innumerable bad actions, but the idea that people make conscious decisions to hurt or harm is no longer sustainable, say the new brain scientists. For one thing, there is no such thing as "free will" with which to decide to commit evil. (Like evil, free will is an antiquated concept for most.) Autonomous, conscious decision-making itself may well be an illusion. And thus intentional evil is impossible.
Many people do make conscious decisions to be hurtful or destructive. What could be more obvious? These neuroscientist folks can't see the mind for the neurons, it seems to me. As always in such cases, however, a conversation with the scientists would reveal that they do, themselves, lead lives in which good, evil, and choice are operative. Otherwise, they would deserve no recognition for their research because it was just their neurons making them do it.
In Willpower, the pioneering researcher Roy F. Baumeister collaborates with renowned New York Times science writer John Tierney to revolutionize our understanding of the most coveted human virtue: self-control.
In what became one of the most cited papers in social science literature, Baumeister discovered that willpower actually operates like a muscle: it can be strengthened with practice and fatigued by overuse. Willpower is fueled by glucose, and it can be bolstered simply by replenishing the brain's store of fuel. That's why eating and sleeping- and especially failing to do either of those-have such dramatic effects on self-control (and why dieters have such a hard time resisting temptation).
Baumeister's latest research shows that we typically spend four hours every day resisting temptation. No wonder people around the world rank a lack of self-control as their biggest weakness. Willpower looks to the lives of entrepreneurs, parents, entertainers, and artists-including David Blaine, Eric Clapton, and others-who have flourished by improving their self-control.
From Klavan's post:
Willpower surpasses even intelligence as a predictor of success in life. And Baumeister has performed a number of experiments that convinced him that willpower is something like a muscle: it can be strengthened, conserved, and fatigued...
But in the question period after the presentation, I asked Baumeister how else, aside from eating well, could willpower be strengthened. His response was this: Exercise strengthens willpower just as it strengthens muscles. Even a meaningless exercise of will — training yourself to use your left hand for a task instead of your right, for instance — can make the will stronger over time. He added — I quote from memory: “When I was a boy, I used to be baffled by the idea of profanity. I used to wonder why there should be all these words that everyone knew but nobody used. But now I understand: that strengthens willpower.”
Well, right. In other words, behaving well, behaving responsibly, learning the norms of politeness and refusing to abandon them without good reason tend to make you a more self-controlled, successful, and finally better person.
This is precisely the wisdom my generation threw away. Their promiscuity, adolescent foul-mouthedness, bad manners, and disregard for tradition — all of which they claimed were a new kind of freedom — were in fact the precursors to the very oldest kind of slavery: slavery to one’s own impulses and desires. This slavery, packaged in the Sixties as “identity” or “culture” or “the right to be yourself,” ultimately leads to enslavement by others as it makes you indolent and irresponsible and in need of protection and restraint by the powers that be. A poor black man’s journey from hip hop culture to prison is a perfect example. So is a middle class white man’s journey from moral license and unwarranted praise to his sniveling need for an all-providing — oh, and by the way, all-powerful — state.
Ditto to that, Mr. Klavan. I have always thought of willpower as mental or moral muscle. I've been practicing telling myself for years that I will do, or will not do, one thing or another several times daily. It gets easier, just like running that extra mile.
Willpower and persistence are surely important in pursuing one's goals in life, but I would add other items too, for examples:
Comportment Good vibes Sense of duty Social intuition Good, sane judgement Constructing good life plans - if you want to
On the collective scale, choice is nearly irrelevant. Only people with power have choices. The idea that the man waiting in the alley with a knife has a choice is a heresy because he is not a man with a knife, he is a collection of social statistics which assign him an automatic level of responsibility based on his race, gender, socioeconomic status and all the other variables. Whether or not he stabs someone with a knife, is not up to him, it's up to how society treats him.
Similarly financial troubles are not personal, they are social. Whether you can pay your bills has nothing to do with you, but with your race and class. If you succeed when the statistics say that you should fail, then you are an outlier. A rogue exception that only goes to prove the rule. Likewise if you fail when the statistics say that you should succeed. Individual actions can never disprove the collective snapshot of how society is.
If every person is wired into society like a giant bank of servers, then every individual malfunction is actually a social malfunction. If a man kills, then it's because his connection with society was bad. To understand why it was bad, the left examines the nature of the connection. If it was a privileged connection, then he was warped by his excessive access to the innate racism, sexism, classism and all the other bad "isms" of the society. If it was an underprivileged connection, then he was warped by his lack of access to the benefits that society had to offer him and being marginalized, he went off the reservation.
Blame-shifting is always fun, isn't it? Maggie's has been hot on this topic recently. "It's the hippies' fault." It's Bush's fault." It's my genes' fault." "It's my husband's fault." "It's society's fault." "It's my parents' fault." "It's my boss' fault."
But if things go well, it's to my credit, right?
While people make their decisions, plans, and choices for all sorts of reasons, it is a necessary premise in a free society that an individual is responsible for every one of his actions. In some cases, perhaps, a necessary fiction.
The bar mitzvah (a modern innovation, as I just learned) has it: "Today I am a man" and thus responsible for all of my actions.
The delicious pleasures of blame-shifting have never been permitted in the Bliss household.
...we know the brain can “change itself”. You could say that is one of its main jobs in fact – altering itself in response to experience to better adapt to the conditions in which it finds itself. For example, as children learn a language, their auditory system specialises to recognise the typical sounds of that language. Their brains become highly expert at distinguishing those sounds and, in the process, lose the ability to distinguish sounds they hear less often. (This is why many Japanese people cannot distinguish between the sounds of the letters “l” and “r”, for example, and why many Westerners have difficulty hearing the crucial tonal variations in languages like Cantonese). Learning motor skills similarly improves performance and induces structural changes in the relevant brain circuits. In fact, most circuits in the brain develop in an experience-dependent fashion, summed up by two adages: “cells that fire together, wire together” and “use it or lose it”.
Given the clear evidence for brain plasticity, the implication would seem to be that even if our brains come pre-wired with some particular tendencies, that experience, especially early experience, should be able to override them.
I would argue that the effect of experience-dependent development is typically exactly the opposite – that while the right kind of experience can, in principle, act to overcome innate tendencies, in practice, the effect is reversed. The reason is that our innate tendencies shape the experiences we have, leading us to select ones that tend instead to reinforce or even amplify these tendencies. Our environment does not just shape us – we shape it.
Indeed, smart people have been saying for many years that we have the power to shape our world, our realities, and our experience. There is a real reality out there somewhere, presumably, and real truth and Real Truth, but these things are elusive to our limited brains.
In daily life, we don't even consider that we live on a little rapidly-moving and spinning ball of rock in some sort of curved Space-Time in a frightening and awe-inspiring cosmos that few of us can comprehend. It's the stuff of college bull-sessions: Did the world make us, or do we make the world?
It's all good fun, but we do have to run our lives while we're here. Or not.
It is? What kind of "love"? What did Lennon/McCarthy mean, and who made them experts?
Our link yesterday morning from F- Feelings was excellent: Love Slaves. "The bad news is that most love won’t work, and you’ve got to leave it alone when you know it won’t."
If we let emotion control our lives, we are animals. If we let reason control our lives, we are robots.
There are more kinds of love than the Eskimos have (proverbially) kinds of snow. I once tried to make a list, and gave up. People vary enormously in their needs or wants for all of those sorts of need, desire, addiction, and attachment.
That is excellent advice from someone over 30. Social isolation breeds all sorts of strange and unreasonable habits of mind, while social interaction helps us define ourselves, learn about ourselves, and, especially, to learn what our limits are. Isolation nurtures delusions of grandeur or delusions of inferiority, and prevents acceptance of reality.
I attended a faculty cocktail party last night, and, for some reason, the advice I had received many years ago came into my head as a shy person during boarding school: "When you enter a gathering, make sure you say hello to, or introduce yourself to, a dozen people. Then you can leave if you want to. Never act like a shmoozing politician, but it's your job to let people know that you exist. They might want to know you, or they might not. Either way, it's learning. Learning sometimes hurts."
At my age, with genteel breeding and with my life experience, it's a little silly for me to still need that reminder. People tend to enjoy and seek my company.
Trust is a fascinating topic mingling, as it does, personality tendencies (especially extent of projection of one's own evil impulses and thoughts) with cultural or subcultural norms and rational expectations. There are trust cultures and distrust cultures.
Life has slowly taught me to be less trusting than I am naturally inclined to be, given my cocooned upbringing. I am most trusting, rightly or wrongly, of my own sort of people amongst whom, on the whole, there are strict and agreed-upon codes of behavior.
One aspect of being "socialized" humans is the capacity to appraise the people we have any meaningful contact with. Most people get better at this, over time. Older is wiser, usually. We get too soon old, and too late smart.
These appraisals happen automatically. We know that most human "thought" takes place as non-deliberately as our digestion. We call that intuition: "I like the cut of his jib;" "She seems like a superficial ninny;" "There's something off about them but I can't put my finger on it;" "He's crazy;" "She strikes me as a strong, upright person;" "He feels calculating and devious;" "She seems full of fun, sexiness, and vitality;" "A schmoozer-saleman-type who, if you offer them your hand, takes you by the arm;""The guy seems very shrewd and clever;" "He's a gloomy Gus;" "Too needy;" "What a phony;" "She's a flake, but a good kind of flake;" "He's an Old Soul;" "He's got a personal agenda;" "This kid will go far."
We get a quick "feel" for people. Vibes. Our brains have a remarkable ability to form automatic and almost instant impressions of a person, accurately or not, from an abundance of information: social presentation, tone of voice, body language, posture, facial expressions, dress and grooming, use of words, style of interacting, and social signaling of all sorts. It takes around a fifth of a second, after all, to fall in love or in lust, and not much longer to think that you might, or might not, want to consider getting to know somebody. Of course, it pays to be careful, but most people mean well unless they are on the make in some calculating way, and everybody wants some things - but perhaps not from you.
When we have any interest and curiosity in a person beyond the superficial (driven by such things as business dealings, attraction, things in common, etc), we have to move past the intuitive impressions, which are often in error and contaminated by emotional and/or transference reactions, put our thinking cap on, and do a little active thinking about a person. People don't do it in the methodical way that shrinks do as trained observers and inquirers, but cover many of the same bases of human interaction. For some examples:
- intelligence, curiosity, fund and depth of knowledge, abilities, talents, wit, good cheer, interests, goals and dreams - do we get along - are we on the same page with shared assumptions and understandings? Same tribe? Do we speak the same language, so to speak? Or are we different in interesting ways? - quirks, eccentricities, weaknesses, criminality, and obvious flaws - respectfulness, decorum, and self-respect - sociability, manners, openness, depth, relatedness or self-centeredness, self-awareness - integrity, honor, self-control, level of BS, reliability, trustworthiness. Are they givers, takers, or neither; general emotional maturity and judgement - level of energy, vitality, and ambition: Are they fun or stimulating to be with? As Imus would say, "What do they bring to the table?" - level of life functioning (that covers a whole lot of territory)
along with other considerations, and, of course:
- Do they want something from me and, if so, what? (eg sex, money, love, favors, attention, status, casual social acquaintanceship, friendship, close friendship, Christian fellowship, help, companionship, collegiality, conversational amusement, or, as in most cases, little or nothing at all, etc.). If we're in an introspective mood, we might also ask ourselves what we want with them, and where we want to locate our boundaries with them.
Shrinks, when at work, attempt character assessment in a way that is analogous to a physical exam (ie "Come into the consulting room and take your social facade off. Strip to your psychological underwear. The doctor will be with you shortly, and you can let her know who you really are, what you are really made of, and what your private struggles are.). I am not impressed that, in the end, we shrinks make many fewer initial errors than the average thoughtful and perceptive person on the street. We just don't use the same lingo.
I began this post with the intention of writing about different levels of life functioning, with this as an intro, but this is already long enough for now. LOF can wait until later.
It's a subject that has been on my mind for quite a while - the phenomenon of perpetual psychological adolescence in us decadent and pampered Americans - so I will look forward to seeing what she has to say about it.
I hope she will mention that the post-war worship of youth, which culminated in the late 60s and 70s, provided social permission, if not incentive, for adults to continue behaving like kids. Even college, once the domain of the serious, has become an extension of high-school. Given the human temptation for regression, and the joys of youth when compared with the rigors, duties, sacrifices, and responsibilities of adulthood, it's no wonder that people welcome the socio-cultural invitation. Every psychiatrist and psychoanalyst in America, and probably in Europe, is well-aware of this. And so are our politicians, who feed into it - and feed on it: Take care of me, Mommy and Daddy Government.
Photo: These mill workers in Georgia around the turn of the century were probably more mature than some of the 40 year-olds I see these days. Yes, I am in favor of children working. All of mine did. I did, too - and it was not "fun." However, I had time to work on my tennis too.
Psychoanalytic theorists have been struggling with trauma theory since Freud first abandoned it when he realized that fantasy can have as large an impact on a person as can real things. He more or less discovered the realm of what we shrinks call "psychic reality."
My take on it all is that dramatic events of all sorts affect people, but that the impact depends on their pre-existing character structure. One person's horror can be another person's excitement.
I have never been able to understand most of that "self-psychology" stuff he talks about, but I do know that everybody is born defective in some ways, and that emotionally-traumatic events or circumstances, generally unavoidable if you live long enough, change people in all sorts of ways. Sometimes they are opportunities for growth and maturation, sometimes they are simply destructive. Often, the destruction leaves a permanent scar, if not an open wound.
We all want to thrive and flourish in life, as best we can. Why not? Life is short. A quote from the Amazon review:
"Positivity is literally the feel-good book of the year, providing a scientifically sound prescription for joy, health, and creativity. Read one to two chapters daily as needed or until grumpiness subsides." —Daniel Gilbert, professor of psychology, Harvard University, and author of Stumbling on Happiness
I have grown fond of Psychiatrist-blogger 1 Boring Old Man. I generally agree with him on things, and I respect his efforts to be more up to date on the latest things than I am. From one of his Awakening Thoughts:
My real complaint about modern psychiatry, besides the corrupting influence of industries of various flavors, is that it lacks the tension and curiosity about things unknown that drives medicine forward. For all the talk of neuroscience, what I mostly see in our literature is "product testing" and the application of any new technology of science that comes along to conditions without creative ideas and hypotheses driving the endeavor. I don’t know why people have Schizophrenia, and I want to know about that. There are thousands of similar questions, and not all of them have to do with neuroscience. I’m sure that people get depressed, have bad anxiety, or behave destructively because of things in their minds, or biographies, or lives – not in their brains. That seems self-evident to me. And I’m tired of having those of us who are interested in that causality discounted as kooks based on complaints about the early theories of Freud or the arrogance of our predecessors.
My profession is currently schizophrenic (in the non-clinical sense).
Why aren't guys growing up these days? Or did guys ever really want go grow up? I don't know. A sociologist named Michael Kimmel has a book out reporting on his new study. For example, meet Jason:
Jason graduated from Dartmouth almost five years ago. Now 26, he works in finance in Boston and shares a Back Bay apartment with five other guys with whom he went to school. He runs and works out, stays fit, and dates lots of different women all in their early twenties. At night, he hangs out at the Dartmouth bars of Boston. Hey, college was supposed to be the best years of your life, right? he explains, with only a trace of defensiveness in his voice. So where is it written that it has to end when you graduate? College is forever, man. That's what the admissions guys say that these will be your friends forever. Well, forever is now.
In 2005, Aron teamed up with some neurologists and with Helen Fisher, the biologicalanthropologist who devised the questionnaire used to match people on Chemistry.com, a division of Match.com, to conduct a series of experiments. The first experiment placed happily-inlove people in an fMRI scanner to take photos of their brains. They found neural activation in areas of the brain linked with reward, excitement, and euphoria. Aron says this is likely indicative of early-stage love. Over time, the activation in this reward area can diminish. The car runs out of gas.
The processes that keep people together take place elsewhere in the brain. It’s a trait we share with only a few other animals, like the prairie vole.
and
We think of heartbreak as metaphoric, but the body actually does respond to emotional trauma, releasing a flood of stress chemicals like adrenaline that, in some cases, can overwhelm even an otherwise healthy person and cause his or her heart to spasm. Broken heart syndrome, as it’s colloquially known, has been tracked at the nation’s leading heart clinics since 2005, but because its symptoms look so similar to those of a heart attack, it is often misdiagnosed, says Ilan Wittstein, an assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins Heart Institute and the lead author of a New England Journal of Medicine article first describing the syndrome.
The movement to gradually destigmatize all social deviancies continues apace. For better or worse, we've come a long way from The Scarlet Letter.
I myself am a clinger. I cling to my antique cultural traditions, morals, codes, and religion as my life's foundations, and I lack the wisdom to opine about whether the destigmatizing of adultery, abortion, pornography, promiscuity, divorce (can anybody remember when divorce was socially shameful?), homosexuality, gay marriage, gay child-rearing, LGBTQ and whatever, prostitution, fetishes, many crimes, drug abuse, overtly antisocial behaviors (see all of the defenses of the UK's rioters), single motherhood, etc. is for the best or not. It certainly does represent a socio-cultural shift which some consider decadent. The notion of destigmatizing crime, for sure, seems like a big problem to me but there are significant subcultures even in the US who do.
The social acceptance of many of these behaviors seems to me to be part of the "therapeutic culture" which I, as an MD and practicing psychotherapist, find to be close to insane in its assumption that all would be perfect humans if not for inner conflict or external traumata. Sen. Daniel Moynihan, who I had the pleasure of talking to several times, defined many such things as "definining deviancy down."
Already, Moslem polygamy is sort-of overlooked in Western nations, and I see no fairness in not overlooking it in traditionalist Mormon families - or in anybody else who wants to do it. That's my Libertarian side speaking rather than my more personal, moralistic and Christian side.
Currently, the American Psychiatric Association has, under consideration, a proposal to de-pathologize Pedophilia. Why anybody in the general public cares very much about the opinion of this APA committee is beyond me, but many do. I doubt that they will have the political cojones to actually do that but, to get a little multicultural here, we have to bear in mind that pedophilia has been and continues to be culturally accepted in many cultures and subcultures - most famously, historically, amongst European royalty, the Greeks and Romans, the Moslems, and Africans, and currently amongst some Asian cultures and many Moslem ones. Prepubescent girls are for rent everywhere in south Asia. As a commonly-defined crime, pedophilia is found everywhere in the world.
Bonobo monkeys do it all, so it must be OK. Human fantasy and psychic reality may not be too different from Bonobo behavior.
In my opinion, pedophilia is not so much of a disease in itself as it is a crime - in our culture. It is a very good idea not to commit crimes even though supposedly everybody does, wittingly or unwittingly. In my field of Psychoanalysis, we still define culturally-deviant sexual behaviors as polymorphous-perverse or plain perverse, but even we - the supposed truth-tellers about the human heart - are subject to taboo PC pressures. It is interesting to see how taboos change, but never go away: now it seems that PC defines the taboos.
I remember a gay patient, years ago, who reported to me with some alarm that he had been dancing with a lady at a wedding and found himself feeling aroused and attracted to her. I joked with him that now he was revealing himself, in modern cultural terms, to have a real perversion.
Some people become concerned with who and what they are, and some people just forge onward and never think twice about it.
To keep it simple, I'll tell you how to "find yourself." Engage the world in all the ways you can: socially, spiritually, economically, morally, avocationally in sports, volunteer activities, clubs, going places and doing things, and in hobbies.
By doing those things, the world will tell you what and who you are. Engaging reality is the best teacher. My experience teaches me that people avoid some engagments with the world because they do not want to learn what reality has to teach them about who and what they are.
Generally speaking, Prof. Reality teaches humility as its first lesson, and goes on from there.
Yes, you do have one of those psychobabble things.
Your inner child is selfish, self-centered, greedy, jealous, envious, angry, spiteful, grudge-bearing, hyper-sensitive; feels deprived, entitled, fearful, passive-aggressive, and often destructive. It's a nasty thing and results in misery (for others) in life.
My general advice is to avoid being "in touch with" one's inner child as much as possible. Reaching down and finding one's inner adult is a much better plan.
The last fad diagnosis was ADHD: every little boy who didn't act like a good little girl had it. Now, it is Bipolar Disorder for all kids with unruly emotions. In Newsweek, Mommy, Am I Really Bipolar?
A quote from the article:
I believe... that there is no scientific evidence to support the belief that bipolar disorder surfaces in childhood. In fact, the opposite seems to be the case: the evidence against the existence of pediatric bipolar disorder is so strong that it’s difficult to imagine how it has gained the endorsement of anyone in the scientific community. And the effect of this trendy thinking can have devastating consequences. Such children are regularly prescribed medications that are not effective in kids and have unwelcome side effects.
Diagnostic faddishness is rampant in Psychiatry, and an embarassment to the field. Why does it occur? It occurs because our descriptive diagnostic categories are so elastic, and so fundamentally unvalidated, that there is room for much mischief. Not to mention that the drug companies always welcome new opportunities to sell their wares.
We humans flatter ourselves when we claim to "think" things through, because often our starting point is our conclusion. We rationalize our conclusions and biases, and are attracted to information which confirms them. However, that does not mean that our thoughts are always misguided or wrong.
Anyone who does not know why they hold a particular viewpoint cannot judge fairly whether it should be kept or abandoned. There’s no point in arguing with them.
That's the point. It is in fact a Psychoanalytic point. Two good rules of thumb for introspectives are these: "Don't believe everything you think," and the old AA aphorism, "Feelings aren't facts."
Mark Edmundsen has written a piece at The Chronicle about one of my favorite bugabooos in Health Now: A Provocation. Here's a quote:
Francis Fukuyama glances at this matter in a passage from The End of History and the Last Man. "In America today, we feel entitled to criticize another person's smoking habits, but not his or her religious beliefs or moral behavior. For Americans, the health of their bodies—what they eat and drink, the exercise they get, the shape they are in—has become a far greater obsession than the moral questions that tormented their forebears."
I entirely believe in the value of remaining fit, strong, trim, sexy, and attractive but it is the fetishizing of health and the common delusions about food that annoy me the most. In the end, we are not in control of our fates. And I hate brown rice, don't know why anybody would eat it willingly. The Chinese won't eat it.
PTSD is one of those fad diagnoses which won many adherents in the past ten years, even gaining admission to the DSM.
As I have written before, very few of the descriptive Psychiatric diagnoses have validity - all most of them (with a handful of notable exceptions) have is varying degrees of reliability. In my field, a diagnosis does not mean a disease in the usual medical sense (which is why we call them "disorders").
What is termed PTSD is presumed to be a collection of complaints which some (but not most) people experience following significant emotional trauma. There is no doubt that people are distressed by, and, I think, permanently altered by significant emotional trauma. It doesn't have to be bad experiences in combat, because many things in life can constitute emotional trauma (depending on the person's psychological make-up). The reason PTSD is so often studied in combat vets is because that's where the research money is. (In the past, such symptoms were classed as ""nervous in the service," "combat fatigue," "shell shock," "traumatic neurosis," and the like.)
He is talking about the subject of what we term "symptom choice." Of course, we do not generally mean that people set out to select a symptom, but we do mean that, except for those with serious brain disorders, the mind has only a set number of outlets for inner turmoil. Some of them are dysfunctional and some are not.
Many factors: cultural, personality-based, familial, genetic, etc. feed into the symptom "choice" of neurotics. I would say that eating disorders (which I view as a sort of obsessive-compulsive symptom) partake of all of the above. However, toying with an eating disorder because of fashion does not create a serious or persistent eating disorder. It's not like heroin.
When I was in training, a wise old Doc told me to tell the old folks to eat all the salt they like, but to take their blood pressure medicines if they have hypertension.
Still, if you have congestive heart failure, it might help your management to limit salt intake.
There are countless myths about diet and health. The truth is that most of it is driven by wishful thinking, the wish that we might control our fates as easily as by deciding what to have for supper.
The only dietary-related thing (besides basic sustenance) that probably helps health to some extent is to get your Vitamin D from plenty of natural sunlight (instead of from pills or diet) over much of your body, while avoiding sunburn and avoiding obsessive use of sunblock.
Thirty years ago, the training and practice of medicine was deeply rooted in "inherited" values as much as craft. Physicians were in a noble discipline recast into paladins protecting society, even a bit of its soul, against an implacable adversary. Training was both arduous and flawed (inflated egos and autocratic mice that roared) but with a central purpose. When done well, doctors successfully confronted their most difficult internal challenges, fear of the power of illness and the willfulness to make important decisions when the consequence was uncertain. This "old" medical culture was best expressed by a single term: "My patient." It was as far from provider and client as you could possibly get. "My patient" conveyed both bond and responsibility.
We are about to burn the bridges to this tradition from both ends.
Read it all, because this is what is coming to your town soon with Obamacare. Some of you have already seen it. Mass-market medicine, by the rule-book, "delivered" by anonymous "providers" to the masses. I plan to stick with the old ways for as long as I can.
We humans have a remarkable talent for rationalizing our feelings and behaviors. The world is full of hot guys and hot babes, and all sorts of other tempting things. One cannot have them all.
First, begin with the idea that love is dangerous and some people are more vulnerable than others. We’ve called love a virus before, and sadly, your emotional immune system is impaired.
While preserving my usual skepticsm about what "studies say...", it does make sense that humans would need a good dose of full- body sunlight daily.
Recent studies say 40 mins/day (without sun block), or 20 minutes per side or until done to taste.
With unblocked sunlight over enough of your body, your skin produces the right sorts of Vit D that you need for full health, vigor, and maybe even cancer prevention. Roofers get enough but, in my experience, roofers often tend to destroy themselves with crystal meth and/or alcohol. It's a roofer thing.
The alternative is to do the research yourself and try to figure out what kind and what amounts of Vit D a person ought to take as pills. As I have posted here in the past, Vit D is the only vitamin I take on the advice of all of my doc friends. However, I also take my shirt off whenever I can.
(Men, middle-aged and above, also probably need a baby aspirin and Vitamin L - Lipitor, but don't take medical advice off the internet. Including mine.)
A patient told me that she had seen something useful on Oprah a while back. Some therapist-type had suggested that, when something about somebody bugs the heck out of you, write a letter to them telling them about it.
But do not mail it. Cross out their name, address it to yourself, and read it as if directed to yourself.
The psychology of how and why we tend to be so annoyed by things in ourselves that we wish to disown, and thus react against in others, is too messy for here. It's enough to say that we all have many tricks that we use, usually unwittingly, to feel OK about ourselves instead of sinking into painful self-reproach. It does not always apply, but applies often enough to be a good rule of thumb.
Give it a try. It is not much fun, but could be educational.
I have been thinking about it. As I commented then, sociologists tend not to discuss psychology. A good rule of thumb is that a person's character traits - personality traits - determine a lot about their adaptation to life and to reality - their success in making goals, and pursuing their goals, for themselves.
It doesn't matter where character traits come from: genetics, examples, or wherever. What matters is the balance between the useful ones and the detrimental ones.
Furthermore, some character traits, like obsessionalism, are good for some things (eg being a pilot or surgeon) but detrimental for others (eg being a jazz musician, or displaying emotion in relationships). For another example, the capacity for controlled violence (useful for cops and soldiers and, in fact many other jobs too including my own, at times). People are even beginning to talk about the usefulness of Asperger's traits.
Each of us is our own stew of traits and strengths and weaknesses. Mature adults do not blame the world or others for their difficulties, but look at themselves, try to identify their shortcomings, and try to improve them if they chose to.
I do not view social class or income as a measure of life success or life adaptation. In my professional world, we use other, less superficial measures such as quality and stability of relationships, breadth of interests, responsibility and reliability, self-control, active engagement in life, and so on.
However, as Murray implies, social class can be a very rough measure of human adaptation for people with material ambitions: people in the upper middle class tend to be more adaptable and able socially and intellectually, and those in the lower class tend to either have more adaptive problems, or to cause more problems for others (which includes governmental or charitable dependency, crime, disorder, etc).
Before I run out of space, I want to say a word about social capital, as I constructed my own practical understanding of it. In my simple-minded way, applying one's social capital means participating in and contributing to one's community, whatever that may be. Being a constructive part of it, beyond the bare minimum of holding down a job or raising a family.
Whether it's as simple as introducing people to each other, throwing holiday parties, getting a stop sign on a corner, helping a kid find a job, volunteering at church, raising money to sustain the local chamber group, running a Boy Scout troop, attending town meetings, joining clubs, starting a softball team, or coaching soccer, we all have ways to contribute to our social network, our neighborhoods, and to our communities. I do know how corny all that sounds, but I believe it is very important.
Our social capital is truly the kind of capital which we must either spend or waste before we die. People who do not jump in and spend theirs before they die are selfish, mean, and un-American, in my book.
We know, for example, that when a patient goes to his primary-care physician with a very common problem like lower back pain, the physician will deliver the right treatment with real clinical benefit about half of the time. Patients with the same health problem who go to different physicians will get wildly different treatments. Those physicians can't all be right.
Overall, physicians are said to get it wrong around 50% of the time. I suppose that is possible. I get it wrong on a regular basis. Dr. DB says he trusts no-one in medicine, including himself.
More from the Scientific American article:
Give surgeons a written description of a surgical problem, and half of the group will recommend surgery, while the other half will not. Survey them again two years later and as many as 40 percent of the same surgeons will disagree with their previous opinions and change their recommendations. Research studies back up all of these findings, according to Eddy.
I regularly get calls for consultations from people seeking disability for emotional complaints. If I fill out the lengthy state form, it's pretty much guaranteed that they will get some sorts of government checks forever.
I tell them to call somebody else. I won't do it. In the charity clinic at which I volunteer my time we have a blind fellow, a guy with no legs, and a paranoid schizophrenic lady working. They all get the admin work done. At my supermarket, my bags are packed by a gal with Down's. She is a sweetie.
The calls I get about this are, like, I have bad Bipolar or bad OCD, or bad drug addiction, or chronic depression with fibromyalgia. Being a Psychiatrist, I fortunately do not get calls from the people who say they can't work because their back hurts. Whose doesn't?
Giving up on a productive life means giving up on life and giving up on dignity. A colleague of mine will not work with anybody on any form of disability. His view is "If they have given up hope for themselves, why should I bother?" I tell him it's all about getting the money, not about hope. Scamming the system, or reverting to dependency.
I doubt it's a deliberate scam. I suspect she is not insane, but probably half-crazy. It's easy to prove: just do some blind testing of her.
It reminds me of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (a fascinating article). People in the US can retire on this non-existent syndrome. The shame is that quacks are around to reinforce this sort of nonsense:
"Multiple chemical sensitivity" is not a legitimate diagnosis. Instead of testing their claims with well-designed research, its advocates are promoting them through publications, talk shows, support groups, lawsuits, and political maneuvering (such as getting state governors to designate a Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Awareness Week). Many are also part of a network of questionable legal actions alleging injuries by environmental chemicals.
Many people diagnosed with "MCS" suffer greatly and are very difficult to treat. Well-designed investigations suggest that most of them have a psychosomatic disorder in which they develop multiple symptoms in response to stress. If this is true—and I believe it is—clinical ecology patients run the risks of misdiagnosis, mistreatment, financial exploitation, and/or delay of proper medical and psychiatric care. In addition, insurance companies, employers, other taxpayers, and ultimately all citizens are being burdened by dubious claims for disability and damages. To protect the public, state licensing boards should scrutinize the activities of clinical ecologists and decide whether the overall quality of their care is sufficient for them to remain in medical practice.
Lyme Disease (which is a real and readily-treatable infection) presents another interesting situation in which crocks and quackery abounds.
In my view, we all have different wiring, and we all have some loose wires and short circuits and sparking, but some loose wires cause more problems than others. Some will just make you more interesting, but some will burn your house down.
Between Arnold and The French Great Seducer, I am reading plenty of baloney about sex. Things about power as an aphrodisiac, things about "primitive men," that old feminist meme that it's about power and not sex, all sorts of nonsense.
Truth is, most people - men and women - have some or much desire for new sexual and/or romantic experiences. Novelty is exciting, flirting is fun, and seduction is exciting as hell. The French understand that side of the story.
The other side of the story has to do with consequences: The effects on family life, existing relationships, kids, spiritual life, conscience, financial condition and even legal issues. In other words, the grown-up side of the story.
Politicians and the rich and famous have no monopoly on adultery or promiscuity. They are common as dirt among both men and women of all social stations and, unless one tends to form "open" and "Don't ask, don't tell" relationships (which a surprising number of people do these days), they otherwise usually leave a trail of misery, shame, guilt, anger, distrust, and destruction.
Everybody knows that, but some people don't worry about consequences very much. They are too much devoted to "What I want to do" and too quickly forget that "Feelings aren't facts," "Character counts," and life is not meant to be free of struggle, conflict, disappointment, and frustration.
I advise patients that, if they are determined to have affairs or want to "go out," that they file for divorce first. And oh, I know - things do happen though. Having a trusting relationship with decent communication, commitment, and decent or creative sex is the best prevention but sometimes a few drinks at the hotel bar at a convention far away can undo even the best marriages.
One of the saddest things I see in my work are couples, after affairs or "indiscretions." Often, they begin to talk, to open up with each other, to become closer, more honest, and even to become better friends. However, it's too late to salvage the specialness that the relationship might have had. Something innocent dies whether they decide to stay together or not.
If all the stories and rumors are true, he doesn't have a personal psychological problem (except his new personal political and legal problems). My guess would be that the issue is that people like him have no problem.
In other words, he just does whatever he feels like and doesn't give a damn because he gets away with it and his associates and his wife don't seem to care all that much. To diagnose that (eg Impulse Disorder, or Sex Addiction) is simply to excuse, or dignify, the sort of bad behavior that most people decide, often with great struggle, to limit to their fantasy lives. Everybody has illicit ideas and desires, whether consciously or unconsciously. That's why we are given the gift of the Ten Commandments.
Now that he has supposedly (as the gossip says) had his fun raping and/or seducing God knows how many attractive women and girls, and finally got caught, watch him now act the victim and seek help for a psychological problem. They always do, after they get caught. Clinton too.
The charges are roiling France, where Mr. Strauss-Kahn was the favorite to be the Socialist nominee for President next year and was even leading in the polls against Nicolas Sarkozy. The French are legendary for nonchalance toward the sexual appetites of their politicians, and they sniffed at Americans who disapproved of Bill Clinton when he lied under oath about sex. But we doubt even the French will be blasé about assaulting a hotel chamber maid.
"Politicians ... enjoy a particular tolerance on this subject," he wrote. "Part of the shock comes also from the unusual scene, until now unthinkable here: police arresting a top-level politician on a matter of morals."
A handful of pills and a few minutes of canned shrinkology is not enough to tend to a soul in turmoil and in pain. Take my word for it. People are complicated. For most people with troubles, sooner or later they have to face themselves, their flaws, and their self-defeating or destructive tendencies with honesty, and it is best done in the patient company of a decent soul who knows a thing or two about it all, and knows how to dig just deep enough to try to get to the heart of things; to gently drive a wedge through the devilish defenses to address the real "issues."
Some of us, or many of us, the Old Guard, are still here if you want to try to talk from the heart. Life itself is difficult enough, and having to struggle with one's own self just makes it harder for all.
Many people, rightly or wrongly and for better or worse, reject Psychiatric medicines which can be remarkably helpful things at times, but also emotion-blunting at times. Fortunately, it's a free country.
Our post about hoarders the other day had me thinking about overeating. Overeating is hoarding fat cells. Once you create new fat cells, you can never get rid of them.
Odd and dysfunctional behavioral symptoms are all ways of dealing with uncomfortable internal states. Most people have at least one character defect or wiring defect which creates some sort of discomfort or uneasiness.
For some people, food is a center of existence and thus becomes a way of coping with being oneself, fending off boredom and a sense of emptiness - all of the cliches. In my line of work, we term this solution "orality." It works, in prosperous societies, and harms no-one but oneself.
For starters, this lady needs a physical job and needs to get out of the house. Her life is too easy, undemanding, and too dull. She'll end up on Disability, if she isn't already. Her son seems like a good kid, and wisely doesn't try to fix her. She has given up on life by taking on the victim role - she is a "victim of a food addiction."
Somebody referred to the royal wedding as "chick crack." I think it was. I keep hearing about the hats, and I have learned over the years that hats and shoes are crack to females even though guys rarely notice them. Here are some good clips from the pageant.
Speaking of weddings, a horny Insty linked this piece on hot marital sex. Daily sounds pretty good to me. When I was younger, I was a twice-daily guy, or at least a would-be twice-daily guy. However, back then, one time did not mean just "once."
It doesn't take much to keep a guy happily married: lots of sex fun, decent and abundant meals made with love if not with expertise, letting him have his alone time, no nagging about his many flaws, some interesting conversation, no inquiring about his "feelings," and otherwise just generally appreciating his unique wonderfulness. Create a beautiful life for him to live in, and make home a soft, loving haven without the negativity and hassles of life out there. That's all we ask for, ladies. Without those things, our lives aren't very pleasant.
The problem is that the Mrs. is now imagining herself at age 24, marrying Prince William or Duke William or whoever he is. He's a military pilot, too, and most of us guys are neither prince nor military pilot. However, being a hard-working, honest, decent, horny, God-fearing, self-reliant American citizen ought to be enough for any lucky woman.
I can tell you that some certainly are, some could care less, and some find it an abomination.
Porn, recreational sex, prostitution, rape, illicit seduction, perversions, etc. have been going on since there have been humans. That's a fact. Humans are endowed with the wackiest sex drives and wackiest imaginations of all animals and, depending on conditions and circumstances, not always the most mature or honorable behavior.
But what about the ladies? A teen gal recently told me that somebody said to her, in the bathroom after a frat party, "I am so pissed that I didn't get any dick tonight." How times have changed. Or have they?
I suppose that the voyeuristic TV show Hoarders has raised the visibility of hoarding. It's one of those OCD-type of things that fades from totally insane to fairly normal.
If what you like to hoard is money, then you're just thrifty or stingy. If you like to hoard "collectible" items, then you're a collector: Art, rocks, knives, rugs, guns, pinball machines, etc.
If you can't get rid of stuff you don't really need to the point that it interferes with life, it gets to be a problem. Come to think of it, hoarding money can have the same effect.
I cannot embed this bit. If interested, there are more of these on YouTube - like this one: We can't have people over to our house:
Today's fun activity is called "Spot The Ukelele." A ukelele has been cleverly hidden in each of the following tableaus. See if you can spot them.
It's pretty tough, I know. It's as if the videographer was deliberately trying to make it hard for us. I think I missed a few. I'm going to try again. Good luck!
Four Small Things
It's a subject that has been on my mind for quite a while - the phenomenon of perpetual psychological adolescence in us decadent and pampered Americans - so I will look forward to seeing what she has to say about it.
Why aren't guys growing up these days? Or did guys ever really want go grow up? I don't know. A sociologist named Michael Kimmel has a book out reporting on his new study. For example, meet Jason:
We all have them, and have had them.
Yes, you do have one of those psychobabble things.
Mark Edmundsen has written a piece at The Chronicle about one of my favorite bugabooos in 
When I was in training, a wise old Doc told me to tell the old folks to eat all the salt they like, but to take their blood pressure medicines if they have hypertension.
By Dr. Joel Levine: 
While preserving my usual skepticsm about what "studies say...", it does make sense that humans would need a good dose of full- body sunlight daily. 
In Sweden, you can get disability for this: 
Between Arnold and The French Great Seducer, I am reading plenty of baloney about sex. Things about power as an aphrodisiac, things about "primitive men," that old feminist meme that it's about power and not sex, all sorts of nonsense.
Somebody referred to the royal wedding as "chick crack." I think it was. I keep hearing about the hats, and I have learned over the years that hats and shoes are crack to females even though guys rarely notice them. Here are some 