i just completed my recording for the subjection of women by john stuart mill on librivox. in this essay, mill provides a theory on the development of power-seeking personalities:

An active and energetic mind, if denied liberty, will seek for power: refused the command of itself, it will assert its personality by attempting to control others.

he (and likely, his wife) further argue:

To allow to any human beings no existence of their own but what depends on others, is giving far too high a premium on bending others to their purposes. Where liberty cannot be hoped for, and power can, power becomes the grand object of human desire; those to whom others will not leave the undisturbed management of their own affairs, will compensate themselves, if they can, by meddling for their own purposes with the affairs of others.

this puts to mind another theory on power-seeking, a rephrasing of adler's theory in j. burns' leadership:

human beings strive toward power to overcome and compensate for inevitable childhood feelings of inferiority, impotence, and dependence on adults

so, subjection creates the desire for subjecting in its victims. (n.b. the cycle of subjection bastiat attributes to other causes)

of course, mill's essay has many more gems than this. visit the librivox project page to be notified when the audiobook is complete. better yet, volunteer yourself!

Labels: misc. psych, political

a working paper indicates that the neurodegeneration involved in the early stages of alzheimer's disease does not alter typical behaviors in a dictator game.

in the dictator game, the patient had a certain amount of money and is given the option to allot some to another player. most people give at least some money to the other participant. it's a simple game, and the researchers were trying to see whether alzheimer's induces loss of "social" memory along with other memory losses.

results show no significant difference between alzheimer's and normal subjects, indicating that they (paraphrasing the researchers) continue to be bound by the same learned social norms despite loss of other types of memory.

how interesting is this for economics? probably not very. however, it's a good illustration of how economic games are now being used for other purposes, for better or worse. that is, it's still an open debate whether the dictator game says anything about norms (e.g. list 2007). saying a subpopulation conforms to social norms based on this game misleads their audience, who likely knows nothing of the dictator game literature.

Labels: economics, misc. psych

the nytimes has a chilling, but illustrative, article on memories of the gulags in kazakhstan.

apparently, there aren't many anymore. these "corrective labor camps" which murdered over one million for crimes against the soviet state, are now simply things such as "just a village for miners," according to one girl. even those who lived through such horrors don't speak of it.

if freud is to be believed, some "forgetting" is natural and healthy. however, as thoughts of the future are inexorably linked to those of the past, i.e. our memories, in our brains, i wonder how this rewrite of the past is changing survivors' abilities to think about the future.

read more about the gulags here or here and, for the bookish, here.

Labels: misc. psych, neuroscience, political

marc hauser thinks that disgust is the root of many woes. but not to fear, we may have a solution:

"modern molecular techniques will one day find a way to cure Huntington's, but along the way, work out a method to crank down or turn off our disgust response, while preserving our motor systems"

hauser correctly notes that disgust is involved in many awful things such as india's caste system, war, genocide. however, involved in and responsible for can be two very different things.

moreover, disgust can be a powerful positive force as well. for example, disgust may be partially responsible for the cast system, but modern efforts to eradicate it are also motivated partially based on the exact same emotion. disgust at hunger, homelessness, and other woes motivates many individuals to do good work. perhaps we would still be motivated to enact change without this emotion, as (semi)rational humans, but would our motivation be as powerful? probably not. we should be careful in vilifying certain feelings - and proposing the permanent elimination of them - because of the actions of a few.

Labels: misc. psych, social

new research indicates that as we age, we get cranky - but only if we're smart. researchers are quoted at yahoo! news:

'It appears that at younger ages, openness to experience is the most important personality factor correlating with the attainment of facts, vocabulary, and book learning,' said study co-author Jacqueline Bichsel, an associate professor of psychology at Morgan State University, in Baltimore.

'But when we get older -- and this hasn't been found before -- it appears that openness to experience is no longer as important, and what is important is a disagreeable nature,' she added."

this may be the best news i've heard all year, as it's a great excuse to be surly to my future grandchildren. "it's not my fault! it's my IQ!"

Labels: misc. psych

how often does your significant other write you love songs? a new study from psychological science suggests that love odes may be a cause, not symptom, of successful relationships.

the study divided couples into two groups: one journaled about mundane daily events, and the other about deep emotions regarding their relationships. the study found that those who spilled their emotional guts onto the page were significantly more likely to be together three months later.

an analysis of couples' instant message conversation indicates that an increase in positive emotional language may be a source of this prolongation.

this gives great hope to those among us who are not expressively inclined; as groups were assigned randomly, ability to express thoughts was not a factor. although, then again, we've also heard that keeping a journal is not the best way towards mental health (though their results may be different if journaling only on emotional subjects).

Labels: misc. psych

men withstand more pain when it is applied by a woman:

When the men were tested by a male researcher dressed in jeans and a T-shirt they were able to withstand nearly a third more pain than their female counterparts.
But when the volunteers were tested by a 21-year-old female dressed in a skirt and high heels "to emphasis her gender role", the men reported pain thresholds much higher than in the tests with the male researcher.

this study does not indicate whether subjective valuation of pain changed via some neural or hormonal mechanism, or whether the male subjects were simply lying to act "tough." i also wonder how this relates to the researcher's earlier work on low symptom report rates among males.

no result, in either direction, was shown in female subjects.

Labels: misc. psych, well being

usa today reports on a recent study suggesting that altruism exists in infants as young as 18 months. the experiment was set up so that an infant could help the researcher with something he "dropped." there may be an important distinction between altruism and helping a parental figure, as the latter may have survival consequences that other more typical altruistic acts don't (although perhaps they have similar evolutionary roots?).

regardless, this is interesting as it may separate the altruism-for-its-own-sake and altruism-because-of-guilt phenomena, assuming that 18 month olds don't yet have the capacity for guilt (according to erikson, that doesn't happen until much later). guilt is a big driver, some argue, for altruistic acts such as recycling or giving up a seat on the subway, and it's interesting to note that some kinds of altruism may exist without it (if erikson is right).

Labels: misc. psych

most are unaware of the underground anti-psychiatry movement, but it's composed of a large group of interesting organizations and individuals reclaiming their lives and rejecting their labels. many are victims (forced hospitalization, jail, electroshock, drugging, etc.), and others are sympathetic advocates. although many are fringe, and some of their efforts are confused with human rights issues and anti-corporation propaganda, they provide invaluable resources for psychiatric survivors, attempt to raise public awareness, and lobby for changes in how the government treats the "differently abled." organizations range from rabidly anti-psychiatry to simple mutual aid or support organizations for those who have had such treatments forced on them or have decided they prefer alternate routes to recovery. the latter often don't pass judgment on the efficacy of such treatment for some, but rather concentrate on its forced or coerced usage.

some cool organizations in the movement:

• the freedom center - a small massachusetts advocacy and support group began by individuals diagnosed with various disorders (bipolar, schizophrenia, etc.).
• the icarus project - the icarus project, "navigating the space between brilliance and madness," a "decentralized network of mad and wonderful people with homes all over the globe." in particular, visit their art gallery - my favorites are paper wall, the world between, and racing thoughts.
• mind freedom international - an independent coalition of grassroots organizations. they publish the mindfreedom journal.
• psych rights - a non-profit legal organization created to "promote and implement a strategic legal campaign in support of psychiatric rights and against unwarranted court ordered psychiatric medication."
• cybercenter for liberty and responsibility - thomas szasz's org.

Labels: misc. psych

the whole post is worth a read, but here's an exerpt from psych pundit, the blog of a clinical psych professor and therapist:

If, as a psychologist, I can help change a patient's thoughts, I've also (by definition) helped change his brain. Changing behavior changes the brain. Changing feelings changes the brain.

In a nutshell: experience changes the brain.

Why is this important? Because when it comes to mental illness, so many people automatically assume, "Oh, well the doctor said I probably have a 'chemical imbalance' or something wrong with my brain, so that means I have to take drugs to fix it." But if we understand that experience changes the brain - that the mind and brain are flip sides of the same underlying reality - we won't make this logical error.

well said!

related news: meditation makes your brain bigger in areas of attention and sensory input.

Labels: misc. psych, neuroscience

schizophrenia drugs are notorious for, among other things, blunting mental ability. via world of psychology, nicotine may counteract this effect:

nicotine patches boosted schizophrenics’ performance on tests of short-term memory and of mental processing speed abilities with which Haloperidol, the leading antipsychotic drug, interferes. Nicotine also improved participants’ attention spans as they tackled a boring computer task for 14 mind-numbing minutes

Labels: misc. psych

hold the presses!

i will try not to be too sarcastic about this press release by the american psychological association:

"This study shows that parent training is the most effective tool in dealing with conduct disorder," he said. "We compared a great number of variables and there was not a single condition where a treatment without parent training was more effective."

perhaps they don't have kids in that ivory tower?

Labels: misc. psych, social

in science journals, at least. from world of psychology, a survey of researchers for the national institutes of health:

Although less than 2 per cent owned up to fraud, falsification or plagiarism, less serious misdeeds were widespread: 15.5 per cent admitted changing the design, methodology or results of a study to suit a sponsor, and 6 per cent admitted suppressing data. More than a quarter owned up to inadequate record keeping, and 10 per cent confessed to inappropriately giving credit to an author (Nature, vol 435, p 737).

read on.

update: on a related note, amanda dissects a meta-study on the reliability of well-cited studies and other misinterpretations of science.

Labels: misc. psych

acting violently serves as immunization against the effects of community violence. or, so says a study founding a correlation between acts of violence and reduced incidence of depression in violent communities.

being aggressive in the context of community violence could be an adaptive strategy that preserves adolescents' sense of control in a volatile and unpredictable environment. "This may seem counter intuitive, that violence in a violent context could be somewhat protective for psychological well-being among adolescent boys."

the "vaccine" only works for males, it seems, and the older, the stronger the correlation. for girls, the inverse is true, with violent offenders becoming more depressed than their passive counterparts.

correlation is not always causation, and there are several explanations for this correlation besides that of a "violence vaccine." one among them is that there could be something particular about persons who act out violently that also prevents them from being depressed - perhaps a kind of proactive, although perverse, resilience.

acting violently could very well, however, actually help stave of depression. it could give the actor a feeling of control that is probably lacking in violent neighborhoods, a feeling that is very often discussed as a significant component of psychological well-being.

it seems fairly obvious why the correlation is positive for girls, who not only face the legal repercussions of violent actions, but also more social pressure to "behave" than boys typically do. in addition, the threshold for violent action in girls, i'm willing to bet, may be much higher. that is, girls are less prone to violence both biologically and socially. because of this, fewer girls act violently. since fewer girls act violently, the ones that do have reached a much higher threshold, skewing the sample towards really messed-up individuals who may be more likely to be depressed than the wider sample of boys who are violent at the drop of a hat.

Labels: misc. psych, well being

baby-face bias isn't just the irrational desire to hear bad music. it's also the phenomenon wherein we perceive adults with babyish faces to be more naive, honest, and kind than their more mature-faced counterparts.

i recalled this bias with a laugh when i heard that a baby face actually hurts political candidates. in a recent study, politicians who lack baby faces won more votes, and more elections. perhaps we aren't seeking honesty and kindness in our representatives.

but for those baby faces among us, don't despair. we may not be winning politicians, but past baby-face studies indicating that a less-mature face helps us get away with all sorts of other crimes. judges seem to be unable to imagine baby-faced individuals as intentionally causing harm (see zebrowitz 1991). however, importantly, judges can think of baby-faced folks as incompetent - perhaps leading us, in part, to the results of the current study.

Labels: misc. psych, political

the post title may be an exaggeration, but does have a seed of truth to it according to a new study.

i've previously posted on implicit prejudice - prejudiced beliefs we supposedly have without consciously thinking them - and later wondered whether it really even matters, given that when subjects are have an additional 500 milliseconds to respond that "prejudiced" response usually disappears.

just-published research may indicate that implicit racial bias does matter, but not in the way you'd think. the results indicate that blacks prefer to interact with whites scoring higher on the implicit racism scale.

psychologists gave whities standard implicit association tests (IAT) and then were paired with a black participant to discuss racial issues. the latter were then asked to rate how much they liked their conversation partners.

shelton et al. conclude that implicitly "racist" students may overcompensate when trying to conceal their bias, making them appear friendlier and therefore more desirable. those without strong racial bias may not try as hard to appear unbiased, and therefore are perceived as less favorable.

would the IAT given with longer time intervals (allowing the conscience to correct for immediate reactions) correlate in this way? certainly not - i'd guess researchers would get the inverse - and expected - result.

nota bene: yesterday's aei panel on neuromorality included a great presentation by philip tetlock of university of california at berkeley critiquing implicit association tests and their implications... you can watch the video online.

source: shelton, jn, et al. ironic effects of racial bias during interracial interactions. psychological science. may 2005

Labels: misc. psych

involuntary committal is a contentious subject in mental health. recently i came across a story that nicely highlights its danger. this situation's extreme nature serves as a reminder that health professionals are just as likely to abuse power as anyone else:

A Longboat Key psychologist has been sentenced to ten weekends in jail for lying on forms to involuntarily commit a griping neighbor who later died. Holli Bodner had a yearlong feud with Jean Pierre Villar about street lights and dog poop before committing him to a mental health center in April 2003.

psychiatric hospitals are often frightening and dehumanizing places. they are similar to jails and should be taken seriously. if we must involuntarily commit, lawmakers should narrowly designate who should receive that onerous power or restructure the sentencing rules to allow more objective sentencing. even criminals get a trial by elected official, whereas the mentally "ill" are often "jailed" without due process.

actually, it is not clear to me that we must involuntarily commit at all. if we take seriously the concept of self-ownership (a dubious assumption), only those who willingly choose to enter such facilities, or those ordered by courts in lieu of or along with criminal punishment, would do so. even those individuals presenting a threat to or actually harming themselves could not be committed, as with total self-ownership comes the right to destroy one's property.

the rest of the cases would involve a citizen or official's feeling that the individual poses a threat to others. i've mentioned earlier that it's very dangerous to make legal decisions on grounds as subjective as feelings, but in addition this preemptive condition means we're jailing people who have done nothing wrong but instead look like they someday might. law has dealt with cases such as these before, in particular as regards stalking and threats of homicide. it is not clear to me why we should handle the mentally "ill" differently, except in their treatment if convicted.

Labels: decision making, misc. psych

psychology today features their top 10 most misguided ideas stemming from psychological theory. to get on the list, the ideas must be disproved but still widely used in practice. it's an amusing, though biased, read ("disproved," after all, is somewhat subjective). some remind us how far we've come in so little time. highlights:

• the idea that launched a thousand suits: recovered memories
• meanest: correctional boot camps (doesn't maury povich send kids there?)
• the pt barnum medal for mass-market potential: mozart babies

other awards include "most twisted" and "most bureaucratic." i wonder what things are now in fashion that will one day be on this list... adhd drugs, perhaps?

Labels: misc. psych

psychologists, although typically against corporate welfare and for easy access to mental health services, are lobbying for their own kind of protectionism in the form of stricter licensing laws. this is frustrating because licensing just raises the price of receiving treatment (by reducing the number of those practicing). one psychologist has a good point about the petition.
not only does the petition stifle competition, it proposes unrealistic and unnecessary requirements. for example, it states that all psychologists must have "diversity training," something many likely don’t need due to their own varied experiences, or will not need in practice. it also suggests that all psychologists receive training in the "full range of psychopathology and how neurobiological processes," which, again, seems impractical and unnecessary. a general therapist should have little need for such knowledge. these stipulations would just be annoying and silly if there weren’t real stakes – but there are. people don’t get treatment - people are forced to stay sick when they wish to be well - because of special interests like this one forcing states to create unnecessary protections over “public’s right to have competent mental health care.”

Labels: misc. psych

a test at harvard's "project implicit" website allows you to detect your burning, latent, -ist (ageist, sexist, racist, etc) attitudes . tolerance.org says about the test:

Studies show people can be consciously committed to egalitarianism, and deliberately work to behave without prejudice, yet still possess hidden negative prejudices or stereotypes.

excuse me, is egalitarianism not a bias? not to tolerance.org, i suppose - but anyway...
there are hidden bias tests for gender, race, weight, age, and more. i took the gender test, which tested how much one associates males with science or females with the humanities. turns out, i'm the reverse of the stereotype. my result came back as:

Your data suggest a moderate association between science and Female relative to Male

this means i responded faster when associating female and science words than when associating males with science words. i suppose this makes some sense because i studied science in college (ah, organic chemistry, how i made sweet love to you!), and am a female, and that most of my classes were at least half female. of all respondents online, the site indicates that 47% show a moderate to strong bias in the opposite direction - strongly associating males with science. forty-eight percent, however, showed a slight bias or none at all, which is exciting news.
but my results are peculiar. all my societal cues would point otherwise as a child. my father was an engineer and my mother stayed home until i was in junior high. they raised me in a traditional rural area and went to a socially conservative university. i was subjected to the same media and societal pressures and influences as everyone else. however, my results are the opposite of what one would expect, likely because my direct experience with the question at hand pointed otherwise. amazing, the human mind...

Labels: ideology, misc. psych

a fascinating tidbit in psychology today this month: placebos are nearly as effective as pharmaceuticals in many cases, particularly among children and those with mild depression. some of the data is shocking:

• in a zoloft trial, 59% of children improved on placebo, compared to 69% on zoloft.
• the response to placebos seems to be increasing 7% per decade.

theories as to why placebos are so effective abound. in young people and those with mild depression, it could be that the circuits aren’t as severely disrupted or ingrained and are therefore easier to correct, possibly simply by a trick of mind. the conundrum of why placebos are increasingly effective over the decades, however, is another question altogether. an interesting theory is that drug ads are convincing us that drugs are more effective, creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.

besides an interesting bit of trivia, you may be asking, what’s the point? well. the fda requires drug companies to prove that their drugs have statistically significant effects compared to placebos. if companies can’t prove this, their drug will not be approved for sale in the us. with this phenomenon on the rise, with such startling results as those cited above, perhaps the fda will have to rethink what it calls an effective drug.

in addition, i wonder if drug marketing is actually improving the effectiveness of the drug, therefore providing a kind of public good?

Labels: drugs, misc. psych, neuroscience, social