Ever met someone who referred to themselves as a “perfectionist”? Well according to this article from Behavior Modification, that might indicate a potential psychological imbalance. That’s not to say that you should rush them to the nearest psych ward or hospital for evaluation, because this is a widely contested and hotly debated issue. The reigning belief in popular psychology is that there are two types of perfectionism, positive and negative. In fact the existing measure for judging perfectionism is called the PANPS, the Positive and Negative Perfectionism Scale. One of the most often used examples of negative perfectionism is in people with eating disorders. High levels of “positive” perfectionism are commonly found in elite athletes, suggesting benefits with some levels of perfectionism that cannot therefore be deemed negative. However, the authors believe perfectionism is inherently unhealthy because it is characterized by “avoidance orientation and fear of failure”. Due to the inherently unattainable nature of perfection, any person who spends their time striving for such a thing will ultimately live a life full of disappointments, which if chronic could develop into a situation similar to that of a psychological disorder.
Positive perfectionism is characterized by high levels of organization, high personal standards, and being extremely driven to succeed. This type of perfectionism is considered healthy, normal and beneficial to the individual. These positively driven perfectionists are motivated by positive reinforcement and desire for success. These people are considered healthy because they don’t avoid situations where they feel they will encounter failure. Instead they will devote immense amounts of time to making sure that they do not fail. For these people, failure is not an option. They thrive and find happiness and fulfillment through their successes which, since they are practically guaranteed, are often. Thus while they may find stress in working hard to accomplish their goals, the payoffs make it worth the work for them.
Negative perfectionism is defined by being disadvantageous to the individual and is regarded as being unhealthy and pathological. People who fall into this category will constantly avoid situations where failure is likely. They are driven by negative reinforcement and a strong fear of failure. Negative reinforcement occurs when an action removes a negative stimulus (aka when the thing you want to stop finally does). However, constant thoughts of failure make it even less likely for these negatively minded perfectionists to succeed. These are the perfectionists who really aren’t. While they strive for nothing else, they are too preoccupied to perform at their optimal levels and are haunted by their repeated failures. There is a kind of cycle associated with negative perfectionism. Repeated failures lead to feelings of worthlessness which prohibit individuals from finding accomplishments in future endeavors, because they remain too focused on their past failures. Patients who suffer from eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia commonly report such feelings of worthlessness, supporting the negative nature of perfectionism.
The question that is really raised in this article is whether any kind of perfectionism is actually healthy. According to these authors, there have been plenty of studies preformed (the details of which make up the majority of the article), which show a correlation between perfectionism and overall unhappiness. With initial successes, comes increased pressure for additional triumphs. This creates an endless cycle of pressure and demand for continued improvement with higher and higher expectations. Perfectionists tend to have low self acceptance, self esteem, and to feel that they have to meet high standards. All perfectionists have a fear or aversion to failure, and in many cases, the avoidance of failure is the main motivation behind their actions. All of these conditions lead to lower levels of satisfaction. People with eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia are often perfectionists as well. They see their bodies as another challenge in which they must be victorious. Imperfections, such as fat, are not tolerated so they do whatever necessary to eliminate them. Depression can also arise from perfectionism, if the person is in fact constantly plagued by failures. Because perfectionists are not able to deal with failure in a rational way, depression may develop.
The other most important aspect when considering the possible positive effects of perfectionism comes with treating perfectionists afflicted with the aforementioned conditions. If a therapist and the psychological community as a whole agree that there is an actual positive form of perfectionism, therapists will likely try to convert negative perfectionism into positive perfectionism. However, if it is believed that there is no such thing as positive perfectionism, then attempts will be made to eliminate perfectionist tendencies all together. Obviously if the tests and studies are correct and there is no such thing as positive perfectionism, then any attempt to create positive perfectionism will ultimately fail at improving the lives of troubled perfectionists.
I think that Edith Schaefer illustrated the point I’m trying to make, “People throw away what they could have by insisting on perfection, which they cannot have, and looking for it where they will never find it”. So perfectionists, beware. Stop and smell the flowers and try to let a few things slide.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
I'm feeling lucky...
Everybody knows about gambling right? Where you can risk it all to win big or lose everything. It’s a bit of a thrill not knowing whether the next roll, or the next hand, or the next race is going to be the one that sends you packing (assuming you didn’t bet everything you had to pack) or makes you the big winner. Gambling is what Vegas is known for after all. Some people even see it as a quick way to win a few bucks here and there. For some people, though, it isn’t just an occasional and fun (albeit expensive) pastime. These people are what we call pathological gamblers, or problem gamblers. In short, they are addicted to gambling the way Tyrone Biggums is addicted to crack. There have been support programs started for these gambling addicts. However, pathological gambling is a serious addiction and problem that has had a very low success rate for treatment and recovery. Part of it is because the gamblers don’t have the desire to quit. With every addiction, one has to truly want to stop in order to do so. In light of the high relapse rate of problem gamblers new methods are being tried to aid in their recovery. Among these methods are a number of different behavior modification exercises. Some have had a relatively high success rate, while others prove just as ineffective as a slap on the wrist is to a belligerent child.
In these exercises, different types of gamblers were used. For a number of them, the gamblers are horse race betters, while some are slots players, and others still are video poker addicts (video poker? I mean seriously, who has the patience to be addicted to that? You only use like, a quarter each time!). One of the best determinants of the success of the treatment was whether the participants could be contacted after a twelve month period. The first number of tests conducted give little detail other than saying the treatment included desensitization, behavior modification, psychoanalysis, and support and group therapy sessions. In general, those conducting the study noted that there was a low success rate when the numbers were compared to the number of people who started treatment. In reality, there was a high success rate among those that remained in therapy, but the problem was so many people dropped out of therapy.
One of the more specific treatments that seemed effective was a form of motivational interviewing. These interviews were based on Prochaska and DiClemente’s transtheoretical model of change. This model theorized that addicts go through different stages of readiness to change from “precontemplation (I don’t have a problem) to contemplation (Maybe I do have a problem); preparation (I am going to change); action (I am quitting); and maintenance or relapse.” The idea behind the motivational interviewing therapy was to try to give greater problem awareness to the addicts in hopes that this understanding would cause them to change. Of course treatment was only initiated when they were in the contemplation, preparation, and action stages of their addiction cycle. The therapy seemed to have an immediate positive effect on the problem gamblers, but the effect faded over the regular twelve month follow up period that follows all of these recovery treatments (to make sure it was effective, and that the addicts are clean).
The next study, the one this article focused on, was one that involved motivational interviewing as a compliment to gambling-specific cognitive behavior therapy. The cognitive behavior therapy was used for patients retained in treatment for a longer period of time. It dealt largely with the way of thinking that pathological gamblers had, one of which was that they had the ability to control random events (slots). Those conducting the experiment figured they may get better results if they combined the cognitive behavior therapy with the motivational interviewing and gave it the abbreviation CMBT. “The motivational techniques might help clients to resolve their ambivalence about treatment, and the cognitive behavioral techniques would then give them the necessary tools to combat their gambling addiction.” The potential patients were screened, asking them to recount their gambling episodes of the last three months and the amount of money won or lost each time (this is a much easier part of the procedure to go through with for gamblers then with drug addicts, gamblers are at least conscious during their gambling episodes).
During the treatment patients kept records of their daily gambling escapades and their monetary gains and losses. During the first two weeks, there was a treatment session twice a week, but then once a week following that. Also, each session was held individually (a huge difference from group therapy). The first part of treatment was the motivational enhancement, which made them less defensive and more aware of their problem. The goal here was to make them ready to change. Part two’s main idea was to get patients to realize risky situations (getting money in some form) and triggers for their habit ( I’m feeling lucky today), and how to avoid that mindset. This again gets at the fact that they think they can control random events. Part three was all about prevention of relapse and the recognition of things that can lead to it (seeing an old gambling buddy, for example, is a bad idea).
All nine of the people that started in this program saw it through to the end, and each also saw significant positive life changes and managed to seriously reduce their gambling behavior. Remember, these guys were all hardcore gamblers and had been for upwards of ten to fifteen years. The treatment proved successful over the twelve month follow up period and seemed to genuinely work. The result is that this more personal and intensive recovery method is effective and that no matter how long a person has been in a state of mind or way of thinking, it can be changed with the right process.
Monday, February 26, 2007
No More Nico-teen
You have seen television commercials about smoking and its health risks by The Truth. You may even remember a slogan that read, “Tobacco is whacko if you’re a teen.” These marketing campaigns are one of many attempts to reduce youth smoking. A promising campaign to deter youth smoking involves police interventions (writing tickets to minors possessing or using tobacco) with young smokers. Increased tobacco law enforcement will reduce youth smoking rates. If youth smokers worry about tickets, they will have one more thing to ponder before lighting a cigarette.
Researchers recently tested the efficacy of law enforcement interventions to deter youth smoking. Psychologists Jason A. Leonard, Steven B. Pokorny, Julia R. Sanem, and Monica L. Adams from DePaul University created a youth smoking research study in community settings. The experiment’s summary appeared in the September 2006 issue of Behavior Modification in an article titled, “Monitoring and Decreasing Public Smoking Among Youth.” They observed popular youth hangouts in towns around the Chicago area during August 2004, right after school resumed. The researchers wanted to discover how effective law enforcement interventions are at stopping youth smoking.
Before summarizing on their findings, the researchers elaborated on youth smoking trends. They report that around 5,500 youth try cigarettes for the first time every day (681). In addition, around 3,000 become daily smokers. They estimate around 21.9% of high school students in the year 2003 smoked (682). The United States Department of Health and Human Services aims to have youth smoking rates below 17% by 2010. To accomplish this, high school anti-smoking campaigns will need help from additional sources. Leonard et al report that law enforcement interventions combined with efforts to keep merchants from selling to minors promise to reduce youth smoking rates below the current level.
In order to prove their claims, Leonard et al observed several popular locations where youth smoking occurred after school. These locations were shopping mall and fast food restaurant parking lots (684). The researchers designated two sites for police intervention, and designated two as controls. They observed the sites and recorded the number of youth smokers per day. After establishing a baseline number of average youth smokers, the police intervened at the designated sites. The offenders received a ticket, their tobacco was confiscated, parents were notified, and they were required to make a court appearance (686). Following the interventions, researchers continued to observe cases of youth smoking at the locations. Unsurprisingly, cases of youth smoking decreased significantly. However, the control sites showed little change in youth smoking rates (686-687).
Following the study, the researchers discussed their findings. They revealed that following intervention, the days with highest smoking rates were days with little or no police presence (687). However, youth smoking rates at an observed fast food restaurant remained low, regardless of police presence. The researchers attribute this to the fast food parking lot’s layout. If a police car were to drive by, anyone smoking in the parking lot could be easily seen (687).
The researchers also acknowledge the fact that youth smokers may have found a more secluded area to replace the former public hangouts (687). However, the researchers consider this as progress. Applying the social learning theory, they conclude that making smoking less observable in society conveys that it is not socially acceptable and potentially harmful (688). This will lead to a decrease in youth smoking in the future. The researchers also conclude that increased law enforcement interventions against youth smoking will “modify norms regarding the acceptability of smoking,” (688). In addition, they argue that fewer law enforcement interventions will create social norms promoting smoking, making it appear socially acceptable and harmless. Leonard et al write that adults are expected to protect youth from harmful behavior. Adults failing to intervene with youth smoking will send a message of “acceptance and indifference,” (688).
Leonard et al conclude their research summarizing the potential variables that could have affected their results. Since the researchers performed the study outside of the laboratory, controlled tests cannot be performed. However, given the nature of the study, Leonard et al believe “there might need to be a certain appreciation of the hurdles that investigators implementing this type of work encounter, (690). Yes, there will be some potential answer to any result of the experiment, but one should not attribute their findings to pure coincidence. The police interventions showed significant progress in deterring youth smoking. Therefore, police efforts should be increased to deter youth smoking.
Leonard A. Jason, Steven B. Pokorny, Julia R. Sanem, and Monica L. Adams
"Monitoring and Decreasing Public Smoking Among Youth." Behavior Modification 30 (2006): 681-692.
Researchers recently tested the efficacy of law enforcement interventions to deter youth smoking. Psychologists Jason A. Leonard, Steven B. Pokorny, Julia R. Sanem, and Monica L. Adams from DePaul University created a youth smoking research study in community settings. The experiment’s summary appeared in the September 2006 issue of Behavior Modification in an article titled, “Monitoring and Decreasing Public Smoking Among Youth.” They observed popular youth hangouts in towns around the Chicago area during August 2004, right after school resumed. The researchers wanted to discover how effective law enforcement interventions are at stopping youth smoking.
Before summarizing on their findings, the researchers elaborated on youth smoking trends. They report that around 5,500 youth try cigarettes for the first time every day (681). In addition, around 3,000 become daily smokers. They estimate around 21.9% of high school students in the year 2003 smoked (682). The United States Department of Health and Human Services aims to have youth smoking rates below 17% by 2010. To accomplish this, high school anti-smoking campaigns will need help from additional sources. Leonard et al report that law enforcement interventions combined with efforts to keep merchants from selling to minors promise to reduce youth smoking rates below the current level.
In order to prove their claims, Leonard et al observed several popular locations where youth smoking occurred after school. These locations were shopping mall and fast food restaurant parking lots (684). The researchers designated two sites for police intervention, and designated two as controls. They observed the sites and recorded the number of youth smokers per day. After establishing a baseline number of average youth smokers, the police intervened at the designated sites. The offenders received a ticket, their tobacco was confiscated, parents were notified, and they were required to make a court appearance (686). Following the interventions, researchers continued to observe cases of youth smoking at the locations. Unsurprisingly, cases of youth smoking decreased significantly. However, the control sites showed little change in youth smoking rates (686-687).
Following the study, the researchers discussed their findings. They revealed that following intervention, the days with highest smoking rates were days with little or no police presence (687). However, youth smoking rates at an observed fast food restaurant remained low, regardless of police presence. The researchers attribute this to the fast food parking lot’s layout. If a police car were to drive by, anyone smoking in the parking lot could be easily seen (687).
The researchers also acknowledge the fact that youth smokers may have found a more secluded area to replace the former public hangouts (687). However, the researchers consider this as progress. Applying the social learning theory, they conclude that making smoking less observable in society conveys that it is not socially acceptable and potentially harmful (688). This will lead to a decrease in youth smoking in the future. The researchers also conclude that increased law enforcement interventions against youth smoking will “modify norms regarding the acceptability of smoking,” (688). In addition, they argue that fewer law enforcement interventions will create social norms promoting smoking, making it appear socially acceptable and harmless. Leonard et al write that adults are expected to protect youth from harmful behavior. Adults failing to intervene with youth smoking will send a message of “acceptance and indifference,” (688).
Leonard et al conclude their research summarizing the potential variables that could have affected their results. Since the researchers performed the study outside of the laboratory, controlled tests cannot be performed. However, given the nature of the study, Leonard et al believe “there might need to be a certain appreciation of the hurdles that investigators implementing this type of work encounter, (690). Yes, there will be some potential answer to any result of the experiment, but one should not attribute their findings to pure coincidence. The police interventions showed significant progress in deterring youth smoking. Therefore, police efforts should be increased to deter youth smoking.
Leonard A. Jason, Steven B. Pokorny, Julia R. Sanem, and Monica L. Adams
"Monitoring and Decreasing Public Smoking Among Youth." Behavior Modification 30 (2006): 681-692.
Get a Hold of Yourself
It’s becoming a common disorder affecting 3% to 7% of the school-age population. Teachers already have a hard time coping with all their students’ needs through lack of funding and enthusiasm. Early signs can be seen when children are in preschool but the effects can still run rampant even on college campuses. When children aren’t taught how to deal with this disorder, their entire lives can be impacted by this one tiny detail in their genetic make-up. They sit in their offices getting work done and all of a sudden, out of no where…OOO! What a pretty color!
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or ADHD is becoming widespread among school-age youths and it is a challenge that many will face continually in their lives. Be it parents, teachers, but most importantly ADHD individuals themselves, something has to be done to help maintain focus and sustain normal moods that don’t consist of jitters and jumps at the slightest hint of excitement.
In a Behavior Modification article, “The Effects of Self-Management in General Education Classrooms on the Organizational Skills of Adolescents with ADHD,” three researchers of Lehigh University compiled a study requiring students suspected or diagnosed with ADHD that could derive ways for youths to cope with their short attention spans and overly energetic personalities. Because males are twice as likely to be affected with ADHD as females, the study consisted of 3 seventh grade boys in regular classroom settings.
All 12-year-olds, they were selected based on teachers’ evaluations of consistency in assignments and attitude in class (e.g. turning in homework, participating effectively in discussion rather than gossiping, being on time) in a Northeastern Pennsylvania public school. The diagnoses of ADHD were confirmed by ratings of hyperactivity, inattention, and impulsivity through Inattention and Hyperactivity-Impulsivity sub-scores based from home and school tested versions of the ADHD-IV Rating Scale. Each of the students was also interviewed by the authors of the article and experiment.
To narrow their experiment tactics, the researchers focused on using self-management as a tool to help the 3 boys concentrate on their studies and conduct in their classrooms. The boys were required to make a list of six goals they wanted to accomplish at least four of per day. They participated in self-management training sessions beginning in homeroom period of the school day and then each boy was observed in a targeted academic setting (two in Language Arts, one in mathematics). In addition, the students were given doses of me methylphenidate, also known as Ritalin, to alleviate the symptoms of ADHD in hopes of successful results of self-management.
Results were accumulated by a checklist completely by both the students and the teachers. The students didn’t know the teachers were completely the same checklist they were to be using for self-progression and the teachers didn’t know that the boys had been diagnosed with ADHD, creating a completely dependent variable. To ensure results and prevent possible biases, interobserver sessions were held 26 of 83 class periods so that the researchers weren’t relying solely on teachers and students.
Self-management of ADHD consists of 2 components: training to acquire skills and monitoring use of newly acquired skills. The study defined training as each student meeting alone with one of the authors in his homeroom period to learn what self-management meant for his individual situation, focusing on the academic side. Students discussed problems they regularly found themselves in with teachers’ angst. After recognizing areas in which they needed to handle themselves better, students used the goals set and self-evaluated themselves every school day. Monitoring in the study included regular meetings for critiquing of the students’ performance within their six goals. Each week smaller, less overlying goals were set so that a short-term and daily basis monitoring technique could be useful. Peer observation by randomly selected classmates was also used on occasion in the study to give another side of the experiment for comparison. This helped with targeting ADHD students in an atmosphere surrounded by average students, where average students no doubt have an easier time cooperating with education’s demands.
At the conclusion of the experiment, students and teachers were given an evaluation form testing the effectiveness of the intervention of self-management training. “A difference in the level of functioning was evidenced immediately following the change from the training phase into the monitoring phase,” (“Effects” 172). While one student’s baseline data was variable, all the students noticed immediate changes in focus and conduct when training sessions began. The treatment of self-management involving training and monitoring of acquired skills to cope with ADHD had worked!
As with all treatments for any health factor or disorder, there are limitations. But, the experiment shows that there is help in sight for individuals faced with ADHD. It just takes patience, and clearly patience can be taught. However, because Ritalin was used in this experiment it is unclear if self-management can work alone for those with ADHD and the article suggests that someone conduct the same test without the aid of Ritalin. That is something that studies and drug companies would have to work out on their own. It may be possible however that after obtaining excellent self-management skills, that the use of drugs like Ritalin would not be necessary. All in all, students near the same ages of the boys tested with and without ADHD are undergoing dramatic changes where self-management needs to be taught and practiced. For those with ADHD the process is harder, but there is hope and available help.
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or ADHD is becoming widespread among school-age youths and it is a challenge that many will face continually in their lives. Be it parents, teachers, but most importantly ADHD individuals themselves, something has to be done to help maintain focus and sustain normal moods that don’t consist of jitters and jumps at the slightest hint of excitement.
In a Behavior Modification article, “The Effects of Self-Management in General Education Classrooms on the Organizational Skills of Adolescents with ADHD,” three researchers of Lehigh University compiled a study requiring students suspected or diagnosed with ADHD that could derive ways for youths to cope with their short attention spans and overly energetic personalities. Because males are twice as likely to be affected with ADHD as females, the study consisted of 3 seventh grade boys in regular classroom settings.
All 12-year-olds, they were selected based on teachers’ evaluations of consistency in assignments and attitude in class (e.g. turning in homework, participating effectively in discussion rather than gossiping, being on time) in a Northeastern Pennsylvania public school. The diagnoses of ADHD were confirmed by ratings of hyperactivity, inattention, and impulsivity through Inattention and Hyperactivity-Impulsivity sub-scores based from home and school tested versions of the ADHD-IV Rating Scale. Each of the students was also interviewed by the authors of the article and experiment.
To narrow their experiment tactics, the researchers focused on using self-management as a tool to help the 3 boys concentrate on their studies and conduct in their classrooms. The boys were required to make a list of six goals they wanted to accomplish at least four of per day. They participated in self-management training sessions beginning in homeroom period of the school day and then each boy was observed in a targeted academic setting (two in Language Arts, one in mathematics). In addition, the students were given doses of me methylphenidate, also known as Ritalin, to alleviate the symptoms of ADHD in hopes of successful results of self-management.
Results were accumulated by a checklist completely by both the students and the teachers. The students didn’t know the teachers were completely the same checklist they were to be using for self-progression and the teachers didn’t know that the boys had been diagnosed with ADHD, creating a completely dependent variable. To ensure results and prevent possible biases, interobserver sessions were held 26 of 83 class periods so that the researchers weren’t relying solely on teachers and students.
Self-management of ADHD consists of 2 components: training to acquire skills and monitoring use of newly acquired skills. The study defined training as each student meeting alone with one of the authors in his homeroom period to learn what self-management meant for his individual situation, focusing on the academic side. Students discussed problems they regularly found themselves in with teachers’ angst. After recognizing areas in which they needed to handle themselves better, students used the goals set and self-evaluated themselves every school day. Monitoring in the study included regular meetings for critiquing of the students’ performance within their six goals. Each week smaller, less overlying goals were set so that a short-term and daily basis monitoring technique could be useful. Peer observation by randomly selected classmates was also used on occasion in the study to give another side of the experiment for comparison. This helped with targeting ADHD students in an atmosphere surrounded by average students, where average students no doubt have an easier time cooperating with education’s demands.
At the conclusion of the experiment, students and teachers were given an evaluation form testing the effectiveness of the intervention of self-management training. “A difference in the level of functioning was evidenced immediately following the change from the training phase into the monitoring phase,” (“Effects” 172). While one student’s baseline data was variable, all the students noticed immediate changes in focus and conduct when training sessions began. The treatment of self-management involving training and monitoring of acquired skills to cope with ADHD had worked!
As with all treatments for any health factor or disorder, there are limitations. But, the experiment shows that there is help in sight for individuals faced with ADHD. It just takes patience, and clearly patience can be taught. However, because Ritalin was used in this experiment it is unclear if self-management can work alone for those with ADHD and the article suggests that someone conduct the same test without the aid of Ritalin. That is something that studies and drug companies would have to work out on their own. It may be possible however that after obtaining excellent self-management skills, that the use of drugs like Ritalin would not be necessary. All in all, students near the same ages of the boys tested with and without ADHD are undergoing dramatic changes where self-management needs to be taught and practiced. For those with ADHD the process is harder, but there is hope and available help.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Pshhh... thats not science!
Interrogation is a science, a technique all its own, but a US government funded study done by the Intelligence Science Board claims that there is no science involved as well as brings the question of ethics to the fore. Again. This article is about a study that claims “There is no scientific basis for current interrogation techniques.” That’s one of the stupidest things I’ve heard in about two weeks. Science is the observation of things and learning what works and doesn’t work is it not? So how is interrogation any different from that?
One of the definitions of science is “systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.” That’s how we learn to question people and get the answers we need from them. The prisoner is asked a question, and depending on the response the method of questioning is adjusted to try to elicit a better response. Of course, the issue of ethics makes this infinitely more difficult, as it limits us to mainly verbal communication and no physical, shall we say, incentive for the prisoner to give the information. Anyhow, this is what scientists like to call “experimentation.” Yes, that’s right I said it. Each interrogation is like an experiment because each person will respond to a certain stimulus in a different manner. Interrogators are constantly learning what does and doesn’t work, which is exactly what scientists do. They have an idea (a.k.a. hypothesis, see where I’m going with this?) of a technique or simulation that will get a desired response and they try it. If that doesn’t work then they try again after tweaking their experiment a bit.
Interrogation is a science in itself. It doesn’t exactly follow the general concept of what science is, such as studying biology or physics, but if you think about it interrogation is like a field of psychology. That is exactly what interrogators deal with after all, you know, the mind. In some countries they use some biology too. The
While there may be a number of things that we aren’t allowed to do because of ethical issues, such as physical torture, direct insult and derision, and convincing the prisoner of harm to him and his family, we are allowed a number of practices that have proved to be effective, and less physically and mentally scarring. Psychologists learn about the brain and its functions yes? That is exactly what our interrogators do. They observe their lab rat and how it reacts to different forms of provocation. The experimenter observes the lab rat’s emotions and responds with further provocation or a different form of it in order to get the desired result: the yielding of information. Of course, the desired result isn’t always quite what was expected. Scientists perform experiments all the time and learn things completely unexpected from their efforts. Don’t think interrogators are much different, but their experiments garner information on which the lives of their friends and squad may depend in the immediate future. This is an area of science that has dire consequences if experiments go awry. That’s why the range of methods, while limited by the standards of ethics, is rather extensive.
The techniques interrogators use can be something as simple as a reward for cooperation or removal of a privilege for being a pain in the a- I mean, for being difficult. Instilling fear is generally effective as is making the prisoner feel comfortable or feel a sense of camaraderie with the interrogator. Even the classic “good cop, bad cop” scenario is still effective, as well as the silent treatment for raising the prisoner’s apprehension. A lot of interrogation involves playing with the prisoner’s emotions and asking the right questions when you get to the core of it all. My question is why aren’t more women in these interrogation roles? They’re perfectly suited for it (insert rim-shot).
In all seriousness though, sometimes all this isn’t enough, and they have to be made genuinely afraid. That’s why sometimes interrogators use a technique called “flag-switching” where the prisoner is questioned by someone they believe to be affiliated with a different country (namely one that condones torture). While actually turning a non-talkative person over to countries that believe in torture is unethical and not allowed (although technically it isn’t the Americans doing the torturing, so it is kind of a loophole), that doesn’t mean we haven’t done it before, and it also doesn’t necessarily mean that we don’t do it today (we probably just never tell anyone). The flag switching isn’t about really turning someone over to another country for questioning, but making the prisoner think we are going to, which is usually frightening enough to get them talking. The article states that the “belief that torture breaks down a subject's resistance is without technical merit.” I’m sorry what was it that the flag switching proved? Oh that’s right: that the very implication of torture is often enough to get prisoners to talk, let alone the practice of it. This has been observed in numerous cases, and therefore our specialists have theorized (there’s another science-y word for you) that torture, or at least the threat of torture, is an effective interrogation technique.
In science, doctors and professors who are experts in their fields generally lead or design experiments using methods they know will work. They need to do their procedures correctly or else the experiment will either yield incorrect or misleading data or just fail altogether. How are these doctors and professors experts? Experience. That’s what interrogators have to have: experience to know what will work and how to apply it. They understand their field of practice and can effectively negotiate it. They have to be able to tell when they are given misleading or false information and be able to know how to get the right information. Interrogation is indeed a science. In all honesty it should be considered a field of psychology. After all, don’t therapists use a mild form of interrogation to help their client? That’s exactly what they do. Therapists ask their clients a series of questions in order to get answers and information the therapist can use to help them. This study done by the Intelligence Science Board is a load of crap, saying that there is no scientific basis for interrogation. If you believe that, then you must not believe in psychology as a field of science either. Remember, just because an authority figure says something, that doesn’t make it true (that goes for professors too, they don’t know everything, and don’t let them tell you so). Logic and experience are some of the best tools one can use to determine truth, so figure it out for yourself and don’t let others tell you what is and isn’t.
Quick, grab your gas mask!
I have never been a big fan of the Bush Administration. I despised the decision to hastily enter Iraq, and I still maintain that view. The administration’s national security obsession made hearing those words trigger my gag reflex. Therefore, it surprises me to find some recent government action acceptable. Recent attempts to stop building biodefense laboratories trigger a debate about protecting the country from biological attacks. The United States currently lacks the technology to prevent or handle a large-scale biological attack. With no arms buildup to threaten world peace, biodefense research can upgrade the United States’ defense capabilities.
However, not everyone shares the same views towards biodefense. A recent editorial in Nature proposed a different opinion towards biodefense research. “Enough Biodefence,” first appeared on November 2, 2006. The editorial board at Nature challenges building biodefense laboratories for the sake of natural interest. The article cites several examples of biodefense laboratories being constructed in the United States. Local residents have protested and legally challenged the biodefense labs’ constructions near their homes. The article does not take a stance on these issues, but does being to ponder the underlying issue. The writer states, “The proliferation of such labs begs the broader question of how much biodefense is too much.” Biodefense’s importance became more evident following the anthrax-infested mail circulating after September 11, 2001. The threat of biological warfare was never more threatening. The United States feared terrorists would use similar agents to wreak havoc on society. It wouldn’t be the first time that happened in the world. In 1995, a Japanese terrorist group known as Aum Shinrikyo (now known as Aleph) carried out a nerve gas attack on the Tokyo subway system. The attack killed 12 people and injured thousands. The threat of similar attacks caused the United States to increase it’s biodefense research funding ($36 billion total).
Nature argues that the public needs to know the importance of biodefense. They believe the administration got a free pass back in 2001 when the government originally implemented biodefense research. The political climate at the time was much less speculative on government decisions, assuming that all were made to solely protect the country. Five years later, Nature asks the White House to explain how the proliferation of biodefense knowledge pertains to national interest. In short, if you build the biodefense labs, for what reason are you building them?
They have a valid point. Is there some threat of which the public is unaware? The government wouldn’t spend $178 million for a biodefense laboratory at the Boston University Medical Center unless they needed it, would they? But what Nature ignores is the importance of analyzing current and future bioterrorism and biological warfare threats. Bioterrorism could very well be improbable science fiction today, but it could be a reality in the near future.
Bioterrorism is not as passive as someone releasing a rhinovirus (common cold) into a populated area. Government agencies worry about more potent viruses and diseases that often cause death quickly. The American Medical Association (AMA) lists inhalational anthrax as a potential bioterrorism threat. Inhalational anthrax (more serious than cutaneous anthrax that circulated in the mail in 2001) results from inhaling anthrax bacterial spores. Upon inhalation, the spores release toxins into the respiratory system. Inhalational anthrax symptoms are similar to influenza, but often the infected subjects die within two or three days of showing symptoms. Vaccines against anthrax do exist, but are not readily available to the public. Military personnel and other at-risk individuals can receive the shot, but the AMA reports that it requires six shots over an eighteen-month period, plus yearly booster shots. Biodefense research can discover more effective vaccines and preventative measures, to deter a large-scale bioterrorist attack.
Airborne anthrax outbreaks are not fictitious or theoretical. “Anthrax as a Biological Weapon,” by Thomas V. Inglesby, Donald A. Henderson, John G. Barlett, Michael S. Ascher, et al., appeared in the May 12, 1999 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). The article reports that a Soviet “military microbiology” facility’s accidental release of airborne anthrax spores caused 68 deaths from 79 reported infections (1736). Aum Shinrikyo, the Tokyo sarin gas attack perpetrators, attempted to release airborne anthrax in Tokyo at least eight times, but did not cause any infections. The reasons the attack failed are unknown. Additional problems exist since an airborne outbreak of anthrax is invisible and odorless. Tracking an inhalational anthrax outbreak would be nearly impossible given current technology. Biodefense research could create the proper technology to trace potential outbreaks.
Doctors and health professionals need additional knowledge to diagnose anthrax infections. Inglesby et al. write, “early diagnosis of inhilational anthrax would be difficult and require a high index of suspicion,” (1737). Only 18 cases have occurred in the United States in the past 100 years, and clinical reports from the Soviet Union outbreak are vague (thank you, Stalin). Early diagnosis of dangerous diseases will improve the United States’ biological warfare and bioterrorism defenses
Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, government documents are easily available to the public (that is, unless they are classified). The Congressional Research Service (CRS) report outlining the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center (NBACC) provides support for the “proliferation of knowledge” regarding biodefense that Nature challenged. The CRS report claims that the NBACC would “assess vulnerabilities and determine potential consequences” of biological threats. In addition, the research center could conduct “forensic analysis of evidence from bio-crimes and terrorism” in case of an attack.
International agreements, like the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, demand that the United States restrains from developing biological weapons. Because of this, the NBACC would require significant oversight, both domestic and international. I wrote about a previous Nature editorial, “Enough Warheads, Already,” that protested replacing the United State’s nuclear stockpile with modern warheads. I agreed with the editor’s stance. However, defending ourselves from biological warfare is much more noble, and provides very little threat to world peace. In contrast to the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, the NBACC would not create and stockpile weapons.
The editors from Nature may still have concern over classified research that the CRS report outlines will occur at the NBACC. Classified research is necessary to protect our interests. Providing a full disclosure of research from the laboratory would explicitly state where our interests are focused. In turn, this would give opportunists a chance to take advantage of our weaknesses. Once strategies for defending against a certain biological agent are finalized, the information can be declassified, as it is likely that agent would be rendered obsolete. What good is a biological agent that poses no threat to the citizens of the United States?
The fact that biodefense laboratories are being built close to residential settlements is an important debate. While it makes sense to build biodefense laboratories away from heavily populated areas as a precaution, there is nothing else that should obstruct the research they perform. We do not need three or four biodefense laboratories in every state, but around a half-dozen biodefense laboratories nationwide will be sufficient. It is unknown whether or not biological warfare will ever occur. To ensure such warfare is ineffective against the United States, the government is researching current vulnerabilities to create strong countermeasures.
The editors at Nature wondered how the “proliferation of knowledge” pertained to national interest. As you can see, biodefense research is essential to guaranteeing the United States’ future safety and security.
1. “Enough Biodefense.” Nature 444 (2006): 2.
2. Inglesby, Thomas V. et al. "Anthrax as a Biological Weapon." The Journal of the American Medical Association 281 (1999): 1735-1745.
However, not everyone shares the same views towards biodefense. A recent editorial in Nature proposed a different opinion towards biodefense research. “Enough Biodefence,” first appeared on November 2, 2006. The editorial board at Nature challenges building biodefense laboratories for the sake of natural interest. The article cites several examples of biodefense laboratories being constructed in the United States. Local residents have protested and legally challenged the biodefense labs’ constructions near their homes. The article does not take a stance on these issues, but does being to ponder the underlying issue. The writer states, “The proliferation of such labs begs the broader question of how much biodefense is too much.” Biodefense’s importance became more evident following the anthrax-infested mail circulating after September 11, 2001. The threat of biological warfare was never more threatening. The United States feared terrorists would use similar agents to wreak havoc on society. It wouldn’t be the first time that happened in the world. In 1995, a Japanese terrorist group known as Aum Shinrikyo (now known as Aleph) carried out a nerve gas attack on the Tokyo subway system. The attack killed 12 people and injured thousands. The threat of similar attacks caused the United States to increase it’s biodefense research funding ($36 billion total).
Nature argues that the public needs to know the importance of biodefense. They believe the administration got a free pass back in 2001 when the government originally implemented biodefense research. The political climate at the time was much less speculative on government decisions, assuming that all were made to solely protect the country. Five years later, Nature asks the White House to explain how the proliferation of biodefense knowledge pertains to national interest. In short, if you build the biodefense labs, for what reason are you building them?
They have a valid point. Is there some threat of which the public is unaware? The government wouldn’t spend $178 million for a biodefense laboratory at the Boston University Medical Center unless they needed it, would they? But what Nature ignores is the importance of analyzing current and future bioterrorism and biological warfare threats. Bioterrorism could very well be improbable science fiction today, but it could be a reality in the near future.
Bioterrorism is not as passive as someone releasing a rhinovirus (common cold) into a populated area. Government agencies worry about more potent viruses and diseases that often cause death quickly. The American Medical Association (AMA) lists inhalational anthrax as a potential bioterrorism threat. Inhalational anthrax (more serious than cutaneous anthrax that circulated in the mail in 2001) results from inhaling anthrax bacterial spores. Upon inhalation, the spores release toxins into the respiratory system. Inhalational anthrax symptoms are similar to influenza, but often the infected subjects die within two or three days of showing symptoms. Vaccines against anthrax do exist, but are not readily available to the public. Military personnel and other at-risk individuals can receive the shot, but the AMA reports that it requires six shots over an eighteen-month period, plus yearly booster shots. Biodefense research can discover more effective vaccines and preventative measures, to deter a large-scale bioterrorist attack.
Airborne anthrax outbreaks are not fictitious or theoretical. “Anthrax as a Biological Weapon,” by Thomas V. Inglesby, Donald A. Henderson, John G. Barlett, Michael S. Ascher, et al., appeared in the May 12, 1999 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). The article reports that a Soviet “military microbiology” facility’s accidental release of airborne anthrax spores caused 68 deaths from 79 reported infections (1736). Aum Shinrikyo, the Tokyo sarin gas attack perpetrators, attempted to release airborne anthrax in Tokyo at least eight times, but did not cause any infections. The reasons the attack failed are unknown. Additional problems exist since an airborne outbreak of anthrax is invisible and odorless. Tracking an inhalational anthrax outbreak would be nearly impossible given current technology. Biodefense research could create the proper technology to trace potential outbreaks.
Doctors and health professionals need additional knowledge to diagnose anthrax infections. Inglesby et al. write, “early diagnosis of inhilational anthrax would be difficult and require a high index of suspicion,” (1737). Only 18 cases have occurred in the United States in the past 100 years, and clinical reports from the Soviet Union outbreak are vague (thank you, Stalin). Early diagnosis of dangerous diseases will improve the United States’ biological warfare and bioterrorism defenses
Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, government documents are easily available to the public (that is, unless they are classified). The Congressional Research Service (CRS) report outlining the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center (NBACC) provides support for the “proliferation of knowledge” regarding biodefense that Nature challenged. The CRS report claims that the NBACC would “assess vulnerabilities and determine potential consequences” of biological threats. In addition, the research center could conduct “forensic analysis of evidence from bio-crimes and terrorism” in case of an attack.
International agreements, like the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, demand that the United States restrains from developing biological weapons. Because of this, the NBACC would require significant oversight, both domestic and international. I wrote about a previous Nature editorial, “Enough Warheads, Already,” that protested replacing the United State’s nuclear stockpile with modern warheads. I agreed with the editor’s stance. However, defending ourselves from biological warfare is much more noble, and provides very little threat to world peace. In contrast to the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, the NBACC would not create and stockpile weapons.
The editors from Nature may still have concern over classified research that the CRS report outlines will occur at the NBACC. Classified research is necessary to protect our interests. Providing a full disclosure of research from the laboratory would explicitly state where our interests are focused. In turn, this would give opportunists a chance to take advantage of our weaknesses. Once strategies for defending against a certain biological agent are finalized, the information can be declassified, as it is likely that agent would be rendered obsolete. What good is a biological agent that poses no threat to the citizens of the United States?
The fact that biodefense laboratories are being built close to residential settlements is an important debate. While it makes sense to build biodefense laboratories away from heavily populated areas as a precaution, there is nothing else that should obstruct the research they perform. We do not need three or four biodefense laboratories in every state, but around a half-dozen biodefense laboratories nationwide will be sufficient. It is unknown whether or not biological warfare will ever occur. To ensure such warfare is ineffective against the United States, the government is researching current vulnerabilities to create strong countermeasures.
The editors at Nature wondered how the “proliferation of knowledge” pertained to national interest. As you can see, biodefense research is essential to guaranteeing the United States’ future safety and security.
1. “Enough Biodefense.” Nature 444 (2006): 2.
2. Inglesby, Thomas V. et al. "Anthrax as a Biological Weapon." The Journal of the American Medical Association 281 (1999): 1735-1745.
NOT a Fair Share
I think that psychology is an important and interesting science. You use psychology everyday, and it changes and makes people’s lives. The Nature editorial, “A Fair Share” does not support this view. The author states, “Their (psychologists’) discipline is ‘softer’ than some others” (par 1.) He believes that all psychological research should be revealed to the general public. However, he also makes several valid points on why a psychologist would not want to all reveal their research. The article contains its own opposing view. Because psychology is inherently different from other scientific disciplines, a point readily made by this article, it makes sense that research done by psychologists ought to be treated differently than a chemist’s or physicist’s findings. Sigmund Freud is the most famous and in many ways influential psychologist that has ever lived. Many of his theories and terms of phrase have superseded the psychological and scientific communities (such as Freudian slip, defense mechanism, and the oedipal complex). Part of what made him and psychology so successful was that he was not constantly questioned about every little detail of the methodology behind his findings. That is largely because psychology is not meant to operate that way. This article is pushing for something that would ultimately hurt psychological research. Because it is such a variable science it would be wrong to treat it like the concrete predictable laboratory sciences. If anything, these forms of scrutiny and interrogation would just lead psychologists to keep their findings to themselves, even though the sharing of their ideas could be very beneficial to other psychologists working on the same types of problems.
In this article, the first argument that a psychologist might use to defend the privacy of their results is that because all of their research is based on actual people and their experiences, they would want to preserve the rights of privacy to their patients. Psychologists take oaths similar to the ones that doctors and lawyers to take, to protect patient or client confidentiality. Imagine if your deepest and darkest secrets were revealed to anyone other than the one person you intended to know? Anyone who has ever been betrayed by a confidant can understand why patients would certainly want their private information protected. These are secrets that may not only be embarrassing if revealed, but could cost people their jobs, status, and most important relationships. It is against their code of ethics for psychologists to reveal the information that is told to them in secrecy without compelling legal reasons, such as threats of a violent assault on another person. This is actually a crucial part of many psychological treatments. If a patient is concerned that their personal lives, thoughts, beliefs, or actions may be revealed to others, they will lose faith in their therapist and any progress they might have been able to make would be gone. A psychologist’s first goal is to help their clients, not to justify theories to the scientific community.
The second legitimate argument presented lies with the interpretation of the data collected by a psychologist. Since psychology is such a broad field filled with so many approaches, a member of a different school would obviously not agree with another psychologist’s findings, because the fundamentals of their schools of thoughts are so dramatically different. For example, a Behaviorist psychologist who believes that all human behavior can be broken down to raw scientific cause and effect would have no use for a humanist psychologist’s research about the consequences of people’s choices. In many cases there is no point in psychologists from another field or school reviewing a contrarily minded psychologist’s work. All that would result would be continuing problems between the schools and a reduction in everyone’s reputability. This would essentially be like having a fundamentalist believer in intelligent design review the work of scientist regarding evidence of evolution. It wouldn’t matter what data was presented, the fundamentalist would never agree with or believe what was in the report. It would be a useless waste of everyone’s time.
The final argument is another good one. In many cases, psychology is unlike a controlled biology experiment. Since the human mind and human actions and thoughts are what are being studied, research comes less predictably and in a less controlled manner in many cases. While some specific tests are preformed to draw conclusions, many insights come through simple patient interviews with a noticeable trend that emerges. There is no set scientific methodology, so it is very difficult to report in a way that would satisfy other scientists. There are no specific values to place on each reaction that a person would have in a certain situation. There are no calculations to come up with a concrete answer to a specific question. In psychology there are few hard and fast rules that can be applied to every scenario. This is what makes psychology such a special science. Instead of relying on rules with no exceptions, there are guidelines that can be generally used and insight to be evaluated, but it should be not be subject to the same kind of scrutiny that those other, colder sciences deal with.
While some people might argue that research ought to be revealed in order to make sure that the experiments and findings are ethical and legitimate; it is more important that psychologists are able to carry out their treatments in the manner that is best for their clients. This is the ultimate ethical concern. The average psychologist is not meant to treat the entire country, but rather the individual patients who come to them for help. It is to those individuals the psychologists are responsible, to those that they take an oath to help to the best of their ability and to protect their privacy. Once again, many psychological findings do not come from planned, coordinated experiments but rather through the observations of psychologists as they work. In many cases, findings or theories are based on hundreds of sessions with several patients that can not be reproduced in a laboratory setting. Therefore, this “data” is the only support to their findings, but it would be unethical for these therapists to betray their clients’ trust by revealing the specifics of their findings. Ultimately, while it may seem that it is for the greater good for psychologists to reveal the specifics of their work, that isn’t the case. If patients don’t feel that they can trust their psychologists, the field itself will disappear, because nobody wants their secrets told.
In this article, the first argument that a psychologist might use to defend the privacy of their results is that because all of their research is based on actual people and their experiences, they would want to preserve the rights of privacy to their patients. Psychologists take oaths similar to the ones that doctors and lawyers to take, to protect patient or client confidentiality. Imagine if your deepest and darkest secrets were revealed to anyone other than the one person you intended to know? Anyone who has ever been betrayed by a confidant can understand why patients would certainly want their private information protected. These are secrets that may not only be embarrassing if revealed, but could cost people their jobs, status, and most important relationships. It is against their code of ethics for psychologists to reveal the information that is told to them in secrecy without compelling legal reasons, such as threats of a violent assault on another person. This is actually a crucial part of many psychological treatments. If a patient is concerned that their personal lives, thoughts, beliefs, or actions may be revealed to others, they will lose faith in their therapist and any progress they might have been able to make would be gone. A psychologist’s first goal is to help their clients, not to justify theories to the scientific community.
The second legitimate argument presented lies with the interpretation of the data collected by a psychologist. Since psychology is such a broad field filled with so many approaches, a member of a different school would obviously not agree with another psychologist’s findings, because the fundamentals of their schools of thoughts are so dramatically different. For example, a Behaviorist psychologist who believes that all human behavior can be broken down to raw scientific cause and effect would have no use for a humanist psychologist’s research about the consequences of people’s choices. In many cases there is no point in psychologists from another field or school reviewing a contrarily minded psychologist’s work. All that would result would be continuing problems between the schools and a reduction in everyone’s reputability. This would essentially be like having a fundamentalist believer in intelligent design review the work of scientist regarding evidence of evolution. It wouldn’t matter what data was presented, the fundamentalist would never agree with or believe what was in the report. It would be a useless waste of everyone’s time.
The final argument is another good one. In many cases, psychology is unlike a controlled biology experiment. Since the human mind and human actions and thoughts are what are being studied, research comes less predictably and in a less controlled manner in many cases. While some specific tests are preformed to draw conclusions, many insights come through simple patient interviews with a noticeable trend that emerges. There is no set scientific methodology, so it is very difficult to report in a way that would satisfy other scientists. There are no specific values to place on each reaction that a person would have in a certain situation. There are no calculations to come up with a concrete answer to a specific question. In psychology there are few hard and fast rules that can be applied to every scenario. This is what makes psychology such a special science. Instead of relying on rules with no exceptions, there are guidelines that can be generally used and insight to be evaluated, but it should be not be subject to the same kind of scrutiny that those other, colder sciences deal with.
While some people might argue that research ought to be revealed in order to make sure that the experiments and findings are ethical and legitimate; it is more important that psychologists are able to carry out their treatments in the manner that is best for their clients. This is the ultimate ethical concern. The average psychologist is not meant to treat the entire country, but rather the individual patients who come to them for help. It is to those individuals the psychologists are responsible, to those that they take an oath to help to the best of their ability and to protect their privacy. Once again, many psychological findings do not come from planned, coordinated experiments but rather through the observations of psychologists as they work. In many cases, findings or theories are based on hundreds of sessions with several patients that can not be reproduced in a laboratory setting. Therefore, this “data” is the only support to their findings, but it would be unethical for these therapists to betray their clients’ trust by revealing the specifics of their findings. Ultimately, while it may seem that it is for the greater good for psychologists to reveal the specifics of their work, that isn’t the case. If patients don’t feel that they can trust their psychologists, the field itself will disappear, because nobody wants their secrets told.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)