One of the topics that has interested me the most in psychology is the treatment of phobias. Perhaps this is because it is an area that we can point to and say that it is effective. I've read various research on the topic and the studies I've read have concluded that systematic desensitization is effective about 90% of the time for treating simple phobias. A simple phobia is one that is only triggered by a specific stimulus, for example, a fear of dogs or a fear of flying in an airplane. The reason that these phobias are easier to treat as opposed to say Generalized Anxiety Disorder or agoraphobia is because they can be treated with systematic desensitization using a combined method of biofeedback and relaxation techniques. Systematic desensitization is a mouthful, but the treatment approach is as you would expect. You gradually and systematically unlearn the phobia. I say unlearn because simple phobias are something learned through reinforcement and a reduction of anxiety by avoiding the stimulus that is causing the phobia. An example will make it clearer:
June is 7 years old and she comes into contact with a stray dog. June attempts to pet the stray dog and the dog bites her. June is frightened and runs away. The next time June sees a dog, June fears she may get bit again and so she avoids the dog. Each subsequent time June sees a dog she avoids it and each time she avoids a dog, her anxiety is reduced. It is this reduction in anxiety by avoiding the dog that produces the learned phobia. Many people think of the phobia as the fear of the dog. That is correct to a point. After all a phobia is defined as an irrational fear. However, the debilitating part of the phobia really has nothing to do with fear as it has to do with a reduction in anxiety. This is what keeps the phobia going, is the person's avoidance of the dog in this example that is reinforced through a reduction in anxiety.
So in using systematic desensitization we can step-by-step unlearn the client's phobic reaction. For example, lets say June comes to me in my office and asks me to cure her of her phobia. The first thing I'm going to do is hook June up to my biofeedback machine which measures heart rate, blood pressure and galvanic skin response. We will use these numbers to establish a baseline reading of her anxiety levels. Then I would ask June to imagine a scenario where she is walking in the park and she encounters a dog on a leash. Lets say that dog is a relatively non-threatening poodle. I would then ask June what her anxiety level is in this scenario based on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the most anxious. As I note her self-reported anxiety, I would also note the biofeedback readings.
I would then ask June to imagine that the poodle is not on a leash, but is running towards her. Again I would note June's self-report of her anxiety level along with the biofeedback levels. After the poodle scenario, I would ask June to imagine the dog running towards her is a Rottweiler. You probably get the point now that we are trying to establish a hierarchy of June's phobia. Taking accurate biofeedback readings along with June's self reports to establish a baseline of her phobic hierarchy is a key first step.
More to come...
Monday, December 29, 2008
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Multiple Intelligence Theory
I made reference to Multiple Intelligence Theory in my last post. If you've not heard of it, and I'm always surprised at the number of people that have not, you can go here - http://www.tecweb.org/styles/gardner.html
The reason that I say I'm surprised at the number of people that are not familiar with it is because it is one of the most profound concepts to come out of psychology in some time. Everyone knows about useless Freudian ideas like the Oedipus Complex or Penis Envy, but not the important stuff! Basically, Multiple Intelligence Theory states that our western way of thinking that intelligence is limited to verbal/quantitative is wrong. That in fact, there are other types of intelligences that don't readily show up on IQ tests. Now, before we get going down this path let me just make the disclaimer that my IQ has been tested and I'm in the 115-120 range. Einstein? No. But I'm above average, so this isn't some attempt fueled by bitterness to discredit IQ tests. And personally, I'm more of a traditional learner, what Gardner would call Logical-Mathematical. However, I also score very high in Gardner's Intrapersonal category and this too makes sense to me given my 15+ years of studying psychology now.
You may know of someone that maybe isn't good with numbers, but they are very good orators - Gardner would classify this type of intelligence as Linguistic. Although Linguistic is measured by traditional IQ tests (as is Logical-Mathematical). Some of his other categories include Visual-Spatial and Kinesthetic. Kinesthetic learners are those that learn better by moving or touching things - like an athlete, dancer or even surgeon.
The important thing to remember here is that we all are capable of learning given any of these methods, but we will have a preference or two when it comes to learning styles. Teachers, trainers and the like should be aware of these possible differences and not expect students (including adult students) to conform to one traditional standard.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Is psychology fading as a stand alone discipline?
When I was an undergraduate back in the early to mid 1990's studying psychology it seemed as if the brief 100 year history of psychology was filled with break through theories and discoveries. From Freud to Skinner to Piaget to Bandura, there seemed to be some breakthrough in psychology every few years. But fast forward about 15 to 20 years and the only significant research or theory that I can think of in psychology that has came to life recently has been Gardner's theory of multiple intelligence. If you aren't familiar with it, it's quite enlightening - you can read more about it at this link (just be sure to come back and finish reading my blog!) - http://www.tecweb.org/styles/gardner.html
I know saying this that there is some PhD student yammering on about research they recently read about that is ground-breaking, but I've maintained a healthy interest in psychology as a hobby over the years despite my veering off the psychology path en route to becoming a public health specialist. Trust me, there isn't anything out there groundbreaking in psychology anymore! And I fear that a lot of what was groundbreaking in the past is not quite as groundbreaking as we once thought in the light of today's research in medicine. Freudian theories have been all but entirely disproved (those that could actually be scientifically tested), behavioral theories (my passion once upon a time) though credible don't give us the big picture when it comes to human behavior and certainly can't account for the development of mental disorders, and things like positive psychology and client-centered therapy sound good and make us feel warm and fuzzy but research has shown that most therapies geared towards such societal problems as depression and bipolar disorder are entirely ineffective.
Now that doesn't mean that psychology is entirely useless, it just means that the field is changing. Areas such as industrial/organizational psychology, training & development, health psychology, etc. - applied areas that used to be the fringe of psychology - are now proving to be the most useful as they blend with other disciplines such as medicine and business. The former "key" areas of psychology like clinical and counseling have failed to produce promised results in "curing" depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, etc. In fact psychology has been proven to be almost totally impotent for treatment of these conditions. Why? Because they are the result of genetic predispositions, not environmental influences. Psychology and specifically behavioral psychology has had some success in areas where it is quite clear that the condition is learned. For example, phobias. Honestly, in this day and age given what we know about psychology, biology and medicine, it is inconceivable to me why anyone would look at clinical psychology specifically as a viable field. The few disorders that are treatable with psychological methods are treatable via short-term therapy with applied behavioral approaches and the more serious conditions such as the aforementioned schizophrenia, depression and bipolar disorder clinical psychology has been completely inept at finding cures. These conditions are only controlled through medications that can be prescribed by a physician.
I know saying this that there is some PhD student yammering on about research they recently read about that is ground-breaking, but I've maintained a healthy interest in psychology as a hobby over the years despite my veering off the psychology path en route to becoming a public health specialist. Trust me, there isn't anything out there groundbreaking in psychology anymore! And I fear that a lot of what was groundbreaking in the past is not quite as groundbreaking as we once thought in the light of today's research in medicine. Freudian theories have been all but entirely disproved (those that could actually be scientifically tested), behavioral theories (my passion once upon a time) though credible don't give us the big picture when it comes to human behavior and certainly can't account for the development of mental disorders, and things like positive psychology and client-centered therapy sound good and make us feel warm and fuzzy but research has shown that most therapies geared towards such societal problems as depression and bipolar disorder are entirely ineffective.
Now that doesn't mean that psychology is entirely useless, it just means that the field is changing. Areas such as industrial/organizational psychology, training & development, health psychology, etc. - applied areas that used to be the fringe of psychology - are now proving to be the most useful as they blend with other disciplines such as medicine and business. The former "key" areas of psychology like clinical and counseling have failed to produce promised results in "curing" depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, etc. In fact psychology has been proven to be almost totally impotent for treatment of these conditions. Why? Because they are the result of genetic predispositions, not environmental influences. Psychology and specifically behavioral psychology has had some success in areas where it is quite clear that the condition is learned. For example, phobias. Honestly, in this day and age given what we know about psychology, biology and medicine, it is inconceivable to me why anyone would look at clinical psychology specifically as a viable field. The few disorders that are treatable with psychological methods are treatable via short-term therapy with applied behavioral approaches and the more serious conditions such as the aforementioned schizophrenia, depression and bipolar disorder clinical psychology has been completely inept at finding cures. These conditions are only controlled through medications that can be prescribed by a physician.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Results of Birth Order & Political Affiliation Poll
July 21, 2009: A total of 14 responses tonight. 0 responses were thrown out. Of the 14 countable responses, 8 identified themselves as the oldest or only child; 2 identified themselves as being the youngest child; and 4 identified themselves as a middle child.
December 17, 2008: A total of 22 responses today. 2 were thrown out for not answering seriously. Of the other 20 countable responses, 6 identified themselves as the oldest or only child; 10 identified themselves as being the youngest child; 3 identified themselves as middle children; and 1 identified themselves as a "twin" and did not indicate if they were the youngest or oldest twin. Since I can not determine if this individual is the oldest or youngest, I will not count their response.
Dec 6, 2008: Only a total of 7 responses today. I'm not sure why it wasn't a better response rate, perhaps because I posted the question about 9pm PT tonight so it's late on the East coast. Of the 7 respondents, 4 of them identified themselves as the oldest child, 2 as the youngest and 1 as a middle child.
Nov 29, 2008: Today there were a total of 39 responses. 2 were thrown out for not answering seriously. Of the other 37 countable responses, 17 identified themselves as either oldest or only children (I group these together because in psychological literature they are often considered similar personality types); 11 identified themselves as middle children and 9 as the youngest child.
OLDEST/ONLY (35):
>13 Republicans
>13 Democrats
>9 Neither or No affiliation
MIDDLE (19):
>9 Democrats
>3 Republicans
>7 Neither or No affiliation
YOUNGEST (23):
>10 Democrats
>3 Republican
>10 Neither or No affiliation
**Initial results support my hypothesis that youngest children are more likely to identify with being "Democrat" or having no political affiliation or some other ideology other than identifying as a "Republican."
**A similar trend of identifying themselves as non-Republican is emerging for middle children.
December 17, 2008: A total of 22 responses today. 2 were thrown out for not answering seriously. Of the other 20 countable responses, 6 identified themselves as the oldest or only child; 10 identified themselves as being the youngest child; 3 identified themselves as middle children; and 1 identified themselves as a "twin" and did not indicate if they were the youngest or oldest twin. Since I can not determine if this individual is the oldest or youngest, I will not count their response.
Dec 6, 2008: Only a total of 7 responses today. I'm not sure why it wasn't a better response rate, perhaps because I posted the question about 9pm PT tonight so it's late on the East coast. Of the 7 respondents, 4 of them identified themselves as the oldest child, 2 as the youngest and 1 as a middle child.
Nov 29, 2008: Today there were a total of 39 responses. 2 were thrown out for not answering seriously. Of the other 37 countable responses, 17 identified themselves as either oldest or only children (I group these together because in psychological literature they are often considered similar personality types); 11 identified themselves as middle children and 9 as the youngest child.
OLDEST/ONLY (35):
>13 Republicans
>13 Democrats
>9 Neither or No affiliation
MIDDLE (19):
>9 Democrats
>3 Republicans
>7 Neither or No affiliation
YOUNGEST (23):
>10 Democrats
>3 Republican
>10 Neither or No affiliation
**Initial results support my hypothesis that youngest children are more likely to identify with being "Democrat" or having no political affiliation or some other ideology other than identifying as a "Republican."
**A similar trend of identifying themselves as non-Republican is emerging for middle children.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Regarding FREUD..
I nearly typed "Regarding FRAUD" - now that would have been a Freudian slip! LOL ... just a little psych humor there for you. Anyway, in my undergraduate days I was quite interested in Freud. He was an interesting figure in Psychology. However, when you consider these facts, it is hard to really lend much credibility to his "theories."
Freud became heavily addicted to both cigars and cocaine. He is reported to have smoked dozens of cigars a day! And regularly experimented with and abused cocaine. In fact, he even prescribed cocaine to his patients in what we might deem in today's world as a clinical trial. Unfortunately, many of Freud's patients like him became addicted to and dependent upon cocaine. In some instances, clients were coming to see Freud regularly to simply get their cocaine fix. A sad commentary on the early days of psychology f0r sure.
Freud also attempted to generalize about human behavior based on a handful of case studies of his troubled and in some cases cocaine-addicted clients. Of course now we know you can not effectively generalize to a population based on a handful of case studies, particularly those that are not an actual representation of society.
Freud was a good storyteller and he certainly had an active imagination, but a scientist he was not. In the end, Freud took his own life in what we would deem today to be euthanasia due to the pain he experienced from cancer of the jaw which he got from his addictions to cigars.
Freud became heavily addicted to both cigars and cocaine. He is reported to have smoked dozens of cigars a day! And regularly experimented with and abused cocaine. In fact, he even prescribed cocaine to his patients in what we might deem in today's world as a clinical trial. Unfortunately, many of Freud's patients like him became addicted to and dependent upon cocaine. In some instances, clients were coming to see Freud regularly to simply get their cocaine fix. A sad commentary on the early days of psychology f0r sure.
Freud also attempted to generalize about human behavior based on a handful of case studies of his troubled and in some cases cocaine-addicted clients. Of course now we know you can not effectively generalize to a population based on a handful of case studies, particularly those that are not an actual representation of society.
Freud was a good storyteller and he certainly had an active imagination, but a scientist he was not. In the end, Freud took his own life in what we would deem today to be euthanasia due to the pain he experienced from cancer of the jaw which he got from his addictions to cigars.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Funny Ironies of Life...
A few of stories to share about the ironies of life:
About 13 years go when I was an undergraduate student in Psychology, I had a part-time job working at a sort of half-way house for patients diagnosed with Schizophrenia that did not require hospitalization (they were somewhat functional in society). The first week I started this job, I met one of the staff members, a co-worker, that commented to me that "everything in this house is accounted for. Everything in the kitchen, all the tools around the house, I even know how much money each resident has." (So don't steal anything, Latin guy!) Okay, I added that last part, but trust me when I tell you based on his tone and body language, that was the message being sent to me. Maybe he told this to everyone who started working there, regardless of ethnicity or race, I don't know!
Anyway, the ironic part was I never really got a chance to work with him because a few days later the police came out to the half-way house and arrested him because one of the young male residents complained that he had been molesting him.
2nd story:
And about 9 years ago I was working in the Psychology Department at the University of Arizona (Tucson) on a research study. I was working with a PhD student who regularly came to the research lab dressed in blue jeans and t-shirts. Nothing wrong with that. However, I prefer to dress up on the job, even if the atmosphere allows for blue jeans. So I would wear dress slacks and a polo shirt or dress shirt to the office most days. Some days University students would come into the lab to participate in a research study and quite regularly they would mistake me for the PhD student and not my co-worker. I suppose it could have been because I looked more professional or it could have been because I am a man and she a woman, but her solution was to tell me the following one day: "Daniel, you need to start dressing down around the lab. Because when students come into the lab, they are mistaking you for the PhD student and I don't see why I should have to dress up in my own office on my own research study!"
Another Tucson story (Tucson has provided a lot of irony & comic relief in my life, thanks Tucson!) -
I went on a job interview not long after I had graduated with my Bachelor's degree in psychology, at an assisted living home for the elderly. I had previously worked at a group home for adolescents and for schizophrenics, plus volunteered previously at a VA Center working with PTSD patients (mostly Vietnam Vets), so I thought working with this population would round me out quite nicely.
So, I'm at the job interview, being interviewed by a panel of three (two men & a woman, all white by the way). We are only about 2 minutes into the interview, one of the guys is looking at my resume and asks where I went to school to get my degree. It was printed very clearly on the resume, but I told him anyway. "But here it doesn't say you went to a branch campus, you just have the main University listed." I reply that I took classes at both the main campus and a branch. "Well, I don't feel comfortable hiring someone who is lying on their resume about where they went to school."
I sat there a few seconds, trying to perceive what was happening here. Clearly I had not lied or deceived neither on my resume or from anything that had came out of my mouth. I don't like to "go there" but as I looked across the panel of three, I could now perceive a very hostile atmosphere and looks of death coming from the two guys. The woman on the panel looked about as confused as I did, even looking down at the guy that had asked the question, with a "WTF?" expression on her face.
I held my gaze over the panel of three for what seemed like several seconds, but was actually probably one or two, then I said, "Oh, I see..." and I stood up, said "Well, ya'll have a nice day" in a country accent (pokin' fun at them a bit) and I let myself out. I did notice that as I was getting ready to walk out, the woman had a very angry look on her face directed at the two guys. So, the idealist in me likes to think that she complained to someone and those guys were reprimanded in some way, but probably not! LOL
I think it's pretty clear that I was what is known as a "token interview" - they had to document that they interviewed a diverse group before picking someone white for the job. Actually, you might think I'd be bitter about such a thing, but I'd rather not waste my time in an interview and certainly wouldn't want to work for a company where this type of thinking is pervasive. The world might indeed be a crappy place, but some places (and some towns, yes you Tucson), are crappier than others!
About 13 years go when I was an undergraduate student in Psychology, I had a part-time job working at a sort of half-way house for patients diagnosed with Schizophrenia that did not require hospitalization (they were somewhat functional in society). The first week I started this job, I met one of the staff members, a co-worker, that commented to me that "everything in this house is accounted for. Everything in the kitchen, all the tools around the house, I even know how much money each resident has." (So don't steal anything, Latin guy!) Okay, I added that last part, but trust me when I tell you based on his tone and body language, that was the message being sent to me. Maybe he told this to everyone who started working there, regardless of ethnicity or race, I don't know!
Anyway, the ironic part was I never really got a chance to work with him because a few days later the police came out to the half-way house and arrested him because one of the young male residents complained that he had been molesting him.
2nd story:
And about 9 years ago I was working in the Psychology Department at the University of Arizona (Tucson) on a research study. I was working with a PhD student who regularly came to the research lab dressed in blue jeans and t-shirts. Nothing wrong with that. However, I prefer to dress up on the job, even if the atmosphere allows for blue jeans. So I would wear dress slacks and a polo shirt or dress shirt to the office most days. Some days University students would come into the lab to participate in a research study and quite regularly they would mistake me for the PhD student and not my co-worker. I suppose it could have been because I looked more professional or it could have been because I am a man and she a woman, but her solution was to tell me the following one day: "Daniel, you need to start dressing down around the lab. Because when students come into the lab, they are mistaking you for the PhD student and I don't see why I should have to dress up in my own office on my own research study!"
Another Tucson story (Tucson has provided a lot of irony & comic relief in my life, thanks Tucson!) -
I went on a job interview not long after I had graduated with my Bachelor's degree in psychology, at an assisted living home for the elderly. I had previously worked at a group home for adolescents and for schizophrenics, plus volunteered previously at a VA Center working with PTSD patients (mostly Vietnam Vets), so I thought working with this population would round me out quite nicely.
So, I'm at the job interview, being interviewed by a panel of three (two men & a woman, all white by the way). We are only about 2 minutes into the interview, one of the guys is looking at my resume and asks where I went to school to get my degree. It was printed very clearly on the resume, but I told him anyway. "But here it doesn't say you went to a branch campus, you just have the main University listed." I reply that I took classes at both the main campus and a branch. "Well, I don't feel comfortable hiring someone who is lying on their resume about where they went to school."
I sat there a few seconds, trying to perceive what was happening here. Clearly I had not lied or deceived neither on my resume or from anything that had came out of my mouth. I don't like to "go there" but as I looked across the panel of three, I could now perceive a very hostile atmosphere and looks of death coming from the two guys. The woman on the panel looked about as confused as I did, even looking down at the guy that had asked the question, with a "WTF?" expression on her face.
I held my gaze over the panel of three for what seemed like several seconds, but was actually probably one or two, then I said, "Oh, I see..." and I stood up, said "Well, ya'll have a nice day" in a country accent (pokin' fun at them a bit) and I let myself out. I did notice that as I was getting ready to walk out, the woman had a very angry look on her face directed at the two guys. So, the idealist in me likes to think that she complained to someone and those guys were reprimanded in some way, but probably not! LOL
I think it's pretty clear that I was what is known as a "token interview" - they had to document that they interviewed a diverse group before picking someone white for the job. Actually, you might think I'd be bitter about such a thing, but I'd rather not waste my time in an interview and certainly wouldn't want to work for a company where this type of thinking is pervasive. The world might indeed be a crappy place, but some places (and some towns, yes you Tucson), are crappier than others!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
