Monday, December 19, 2011

Deep Thoughts and Shallow Rantings

I decided to collect some ideas I have had recently. I wanted to think about my thinking, to examine what is making me who I am this year:

1.  In God, we trust, resides the source of our dreams, desires, and salvation. Nothing less. Do we name this place God because we cannot believe that these things are the products of each individual?

2.  It is the profundity of our connections with others that makes life's travels worth the journey. Nurture them, and keep them sacred.

3.  I am shaken and disappointed to see the evil in men's hearts and deeds. But I am no longer surprised.

4.  There is nothing special about any particular church. Except, maybe, the ones in which folks hold deadly snakes. Oh yeah, and that Catholic bling.

5.  Why do I get the feeling that there is no one looking out for me except me? Because it's true. That feeling I believe!

6.  There can never be any explanation for randomness. There is no meaning behind good or bad luck.

7.  Bad things happen to good people in the same way good things happen to bad people. The question is, what will you do when your chips are down?

8.  Religion is not about God. Religion is about collectively fearing and ameliorating our loneliness. 

9.  A gene pool is only as clean as the decision to add a little Chlorine to it once in a while. We are the only animals that preserve the most violent, other-destructive members of our group. Do you really want to preserve the life of a hardened, murderous, unrepentant, chaotically violent person? But what happens to us when we end lives like these?

10. There remains a group of people that is not a minority who is still universally mistreated, with all the accompanying marginalization and disservice: women.

11. Question everything you think and don't believe everything you feel.

12. My students ask, "Why should I buy that textbook if he isn't going to ask questions from it on the tests?" I answer, "Because the only question that matters is: have you learned all you could learn about this subject? Only you can ask, and answer that question."

13. It is fundamentally irresponsible to not have spoken with comfort and truth, beginning when a child is young, about sex and love and relationships, or to not provide them with immediate access to multiple methods of birth control. Don't be a coward!

13. As I age, there is more often too much week left at the end of my energy.

(and sometimes I repeat myself)

14. Is there a way to die well? Is there a better way to live? Does living well allow death to be more, or will it be less, tolerable?

15. As I lecture, I see my students' eyes. They glow, they widen, they stare. Unfortunately, the recipient of their attention is usually their phones.

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

My Latest Submission to be Published...

Expectations
When you touch me:
Sliding-by,
I have to get to the refrigerator,
Inadvertent, unpremeditated,
You’re in my way.
I hope for renewal.

When you look at me:
Downward or sideways or piercing,
With stealth and my curiosity that follows,
Even when I’m not really sure you are seeing me kind of gaze.
I sometimes imagine you want me.

When we trade words:
Terse exchange of schedules,
Concise and demanding,
Disappointed, unfocused,
Not gonna talk about that.
I pretend we are newly in love, just trying to figure each other out.

Do I ask too much?

Sunday, November 27, 2011

Mutated Thoughts and Other Wee Beasties in My Brain

Can you die from lack of touch? This is not the strange question it may at first appear to be. If you are a newborn, the answer is certainly yes. A syndrome called "failure to thrive" has been documented, mostly among kids in orphanages where there are few staff to care for many babies. A child who isn't cuddled and emotionally warmed stops eating and can die. No, really. This has been known for a long time, and has given rise to the routines in neonatal intensive care units in which babies are held periodically, on schedule. Touch makes it more likely that the babies will eat and respire and heal well. Most of these babies are premature; they would still be in the womb if born full term. Yet they respond to human touch all the same as if born at nine months. Fascinating. How important touch must be!

But can adults suffer this same fate? I'll bet yes. We know that existing pathologies can be made worse, like depression. I would even bet that depression can be triggered by lack of touch, at least in those predisposed to it. Irritability, fear, loneliness, depression;  I know that folks can get mighty cranky when they get lonely, and aloneness can give rise to things like psychosis, believe it or not. It has been determined that isolation is perhaps the severest form of torture, and severe symptoms can arise in less than hours. Ask any jailer about the newly incarcerated.

And you can be in a room full of people and feel quite lonely, you know, so it's not just locking someone up in a cell that causes separation and desperation. We all need fair amounts of interaction, both physical and emotional, in order to do well psychologically, to stay on track. And although I'm not talking about sex, any physical touch can be soothing; we just hope the touch is wanted and appropriate. I have recommended to my depressed patients who experience no physical touch to get a massage at least weekly. That has been a great suggestion, according to them.

I need a new goal. I need to focus on something tangible that I can later point to and say, "I did that."

I am feeling my age. My knees hurt, two of my fingers simply don't work any longer, I am having trouble balancing when I stand, I no longer have any sensation below my ankles, and I am getting tired. So? If someone had told me that getting older sucks, would I have enjoyed myself more when I was still fully functional?

When should a parent put their daughter on birth control, specifically the pill? This is a complicated issue. If she is sexually active, the answer is almost always yes. But what if she's not? Can you know when she will be? Would she come to you and say, "I think I am almost ready to start having sex. I think I wish to explore my birth control options." Yeah, sure.

But if you start her too early, there can be risks to her health. Too late, and she may become pregnant.

I vote for early and unabashed communication about everything, including sex. I think kids make better decisions when they have good information. The problem is that most parents are too fearful or embarrassed, or are simply not equipped with enough information to do an adequate job. I am a huge supporter of comprehensive sex education in K-12. That's right, K-12.

When comprehensive sex education is employed, most of what you discuss isn't about sex. That may come as a shock to many of you, but it's true. And such programs also offer abstinence as a viable, useful option. It's also true that such programs use age-appropriate language and don't offer the nitty-gritty all at once. That's a myth. Now, there aren't many excellent teachers in this area, and that's a real shame. I have been a sex educator since the 80's (although I'm not saying I'm a great one), so I have some street cred here. And lastly, talking about sex and offering birth control doesn't make kids want to run out and have sex; no more than talking with someone who's depressed about whether they have considered suicide will make them kill themselves. The kids are already thinking about sex. They just don't have the facts, although they have tons of mythologies. I heard from one not long ago: a 15 year old who is pregnant, said, "I though if you stood up after you had sex you couldn't get pregnant." That's her parent's fault.

I wish it were true that parents provided such material and discussions, but that's not what's happening. There is a positive correlation between teen pregnancy, STI rates and kids not getting comprehensive education and services. In other words, the states that are far right religiously that preach abstinence only typically have the highest rates of STIs and teen pregnancies. Our state is number one. I think that's irresponsible.

If you look at foreign analogs to this the data are clear: teach kids what they need to know about building relationships, how sex is and is not connected to real relationships, how to protect yourself, how to make good decisions, how to know when you're really in love, how to know when people lie and why they do that, provide access to full health care including sexual care to everyone (don't get me started) and so on, and you get kids waiting longer to have sex, lower pregnancy rates, and fewer sexually transmitted infections. I'll take the Scandinavians over us any day.







Sunday, November 20, 2011

Fallacies of the Christian Right


1diggdigg

By Gode Davis,  March 25, 2010



The Christian Right and their interpretations of Christianity have become a “given” in American society in recent decades. The current culture of Christianity boasts luminaries such as George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, Tim LaHaye, and Joel Osteen among many contemporaries wielding pervasive influence and power. It goes without saying, according to such luminaries and their tens of millions of adherents, that Christianity and the principles of laissez-faire capitalism are synonymous with salvation and a well-lived life.

To varying degrees, the message is that success and prosperity breeds more of the same while altruism and empathy for the less fortunate is not necessarily a prerequisite for earning a posthumous berth in a celestial paradise. In fact, casting aspersions toward outcast “others” including “relativists” and secular humanists has emerged as a Christian Right staple. Since American “corporacracy” is now a “given” within our mindset, it all seems to fit.

The operative word is seems.

In actuality, historical Christianity has disagreed vehemently with such a message.

It can be argued that America has experienced three Great Spiritual Awakenings, as pertains to the Christian.

The First in this tradition’s history stems from mid-eighteenth century Calvinism. During this event, adherents passed into a state of sanctity through a theophany like that experienced by Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul) as he rode a donkey along the road to Damascus. Such a vision assured these American Calvinists of their salvation. Sweeping pre-Revolutionary America, the first Great Awakening became a model of revivalism. Although critics lambasted the degree of enthusiasm expressed by devout believers, any suggestion that salvation’s fruits could be had merely for the taking was a heresy railed against from thousands of pulpits.

The Second Awakening, which swept the Northeast during the early nineteenth century, laid the groundwork for other cultural and political threads such as the women’s suffrage movement, a revived temperance consciousness which one day would lead to Prohibition, and abolitionism. More caustically referred to by contemporary writers as “religious mania,” this revival too was based upon the belief of a reachable heaven – but only in the aftermath of an emotional/mystical connection experienced firsthand.

The Third Great Awakening is still in progress. It first began gathering its holy steam during the Administration of actor-come-President Ronald Reagan. Although divorced from Jane Wyman (1917-2007), Reagan was still considered a right-wing Conservative in good standing, helping to cement many Christian Right tenets in America’s collective memory. Many such tenets became entrenched for reasons somewhat divorced from religion, as the United States was again describing itself as “fundamentalist” – while still devoutly embracing every principle of laissez-faire capitalism. During post-1980 America, our nation began evolving into what one-time reformist politician John Edwards referred to as “two Americas” in a display of resonating populist sentiment during his failed Presidential run just a few years ago – prior to his very public personal failures. This characterization intended to describe a widening gap between the country’s richest and poorest, and was perceived as evidence of a misplaced social Darwinism, survival of the fittest, an attitude which never would have gained a foothold among Christians populating the first two Great Awakenings, but was and is deemed acceptable if not also preferable to denizens of the contemporary Christian Right.

In one of history’s more ironic twists, the First Great Awakening was inspired by another Edwards — Congregationalist minister and historical figure Jonathan Edwards. He believed that salvation occurred in a stand-alone, clear-cut charismatic experience which he called “conversion,” but which has come to be called being “born again.” Edwards’ signature sermon, the legendary “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” did not encourage his devoted following to believe in their own special sanctity.

The current Third Great Awakening seems to be asserting that very thing, loudly proclaiming a pious aversion toward “secular culture,” likely a code phrase with clear and present implications for those who dissent from positions embraced in lockstep by the Christian Right.

The human force spearheading the Second Great Awakening, the Presbyterian lawyer and abolitionist Charles Grandison Finney, placed a great deal of emphasis not only on slavery and its abolition, but also on the education of women – laying an early foundation for suffrage and temperance movements that followed. It became a natural progression for this Christian revival to address inequality in several familiar archetypes as assumed during that period – black and white, women and men, rich and poor.

By contrast, the current Awakening pays little mind to inequality of the sort alluded to by the lapsed politician John Edwards in the early 2000s. Instead, it embraces ideology espoused by the so-called “evangelical” and “born-again” President George Walker Bush – a myriad of economically-discriminating policies which unambiguously favored the wealthiest one percent of Americans – widening the dichotomy between our country’s wealthy and poor to historic levels resembling a South American oligarchy. According to some of the luminaries mentioned at this essay’s outset – poverty itself is benignly considered to be a social sin to be overcome.

A century ago, the great political leader and Christian orator William Jennings Bryan was a great champion of what were then known as “the fundamentals.” A Democrat, he was a pacifist and staunch opponent of economic structures that he believed created American poverty. His signature “Cross of Gold” speech equated the poor of America with the crucified Christ. Bryan feared the loss of belief in the sanctity of the human person as the only barrier against racism, colonialism, eugenics, and war.

If you listen to those on the Christian Right, circa 2010, the crucial tenets of Christian belief are the existence of God and the literal truth of the Bible. Born-again believers trumpet a “right to life,” but only in respect to abortion of the not-yet-borns, as for surviving conception and being born into poverty, it seems that post-slap on the derrière, reasonable expectations of health or happiness during childhood and beyond are not really a given so you’re on your own, kid.

While those spokespersons within the Christian Right like to assert that Christianity is under siege by liberalism, the passage in Matthew 25 where Jesus identifies himself with the poorest, and says, “I was hungry, and ye fed me not,” seems to have become irrelevant. To those who have not recognized him in the hungry and the naked, he says “Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels.” In Uzbekistan, dissenters under the current regime were said to be boiled alive. Ironically, the recent Bush-Cheney Administration simultaneously regarded Uzbekistan’s leader as a “friend” and his nation as an important ally in “born-again” Bush’s much ballyhooed but never-ending War against Terror.

In the earlier revivals, Calvinists and evangelical Christians predominately believed that God alone judges, and the hearts of mortals can be known truly only by him, in the light of his grace. But the current crop of believers, perhaps forty million strong in America (but not the disgraced Tiger Woods – he’s Buddhist), have checked their empathy and compassion for all those not like them – homosexuals, liberals, Democrats, David Letterman if you’re Sarah Palin – at the proverbial celestial door. While St. Paul’s verses are often cherry-picked by those passing for conservative Christians in the present day – perhaps they don’t realize, “If I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing” (1 Corinthians 13:2) is actually a part of the New Testament where Paul was echoing and amplifying Christ.

Love or damnation is not stressed from pulpits the way it used to be. What is stressed is “the prosperity gospel” of Christian hawkers in the vein of Joel Osteen. A new phenomenon fed by technological advances and materialistic Christianity epitomized by this Third Great Awakening is mainstream nondenominational megachurches like popular TV preacher and best-selling author Osteen’s Houston-based Lakewood Church, the largest in America.

Osteen’s 4 million+ -copy best seller Your Best Life Now (2004) proved one thing – that Christianity packaged as greed sells even better than ‘The faith’ packaged as fear of the Other – as evidenced by Tim Lahaye’s Left Behind series of apocalyptic fiction never doing better than 3.2 million copies for a single title. While Osteen’s church is the Goliath of megachurches, prosperity preachers like Phoenix’s Tommy Barnett and T.D. Jakes in Dallas aren’t far behind. In fact, it was reported by journalist Hanna Rosin in the December 2009 issue of The Atlantic that 50 of the 260 largest U.S. churches are so-called “prosperity churches” – where the predominant core belief is that wealth will be granted to the faithful, in much the same way that motivational speakers have been promising riches since the days of Dale Carnegie and Zig Ziglar.

Worse perhaps, than the 19th century poet Emily Dickinson becoming despondent while considering herself a “no-hoper” during the Second Great Awakening because she’d been denied her own private theophany, is when financially-challenged members of prosperity churches confess their poverty and are often told, “You’re not praying hard enough” when riches don’t materialize. This message is eerily similar to that received by homosexuals attempting to “renounce their sin” or by others deemed somehow suspect from within the ranks of the Christian Right.

It all seems more than a little too convenient and perhaps, dare I say it in the wake of the traditional Christian ideology, not very Christian?

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Is There Any End in Sight...

1.  To the hatred and ignorance of religious fanatics? I was browsing a website recently and happened upon a thread that claimed with certainty, among other things, that:  Jesus hated gay people, gay people were going to hell, and science was all "opinion." First of all, let's get specific: are we referring to the central figure in the bible or are we referring to the many thousands of folks named "Jesus?" Just askin'. When we say "gay" are we talking about all happy people, or are we speaking about happy homosexuals, or are we limiting our comments to those who romantically respond to their own gender? What is this obsession with demonizing the sex lives of homosexuals? Could it be reaction formation? I think Jesus did love gay people, and I'll bet he would have a few really close friends who happened to be gay if he was around today.

2.  To the tolerance of foul language and suggestive if not obscene dress? I'm no prude, not by a long shot, but it's now common to refer to female friends as "whores," and "bitches," use F-bombs in any and all settings, and show as much skin as won't get you arrested. I don't want the pendulum to return to covering ourselves to the point of anonymity. If we ever got to the point where even pets had to be covered, would dogs be required to wear "barkas?"

3.  To the fascination with the superficial? I guess by this I mean to include the Kardashians, texting, and worrying whether we have just the right pair of shoes. I know what it is: it's about permissive parenting in a wealthy culture. No limits, no consequences, no responsibilities, no effort, no waiting. Wow, sounds like capitalism is working!

4.  To the decline in the quality of music? I'm talking about fidelity. Music heard now is mostly compressed and lacks density, timbre and depth; it is of a significantly lower quality than ever before. In the next ten years it has been predicted that even CDs won't be produced. MP3 downloads, the worst quality available, will prevail. That's about convenience, of course. Sad. When I was sixteen nothing was more tantalizing, nothing more seductive than obtaining a really good stereo system. Over a summer I washed dishes at Woolworth's; $366 bought me an entry level Rotel amp with Frazier speakers and a Garrrard turntable with a Shure cartridge. I loved the smell of vinyl in the morning!





Monday, October 24, 2011

Real 'Sybil' Admits Multiple Personalities Were Fake (NPR Books)

October 20, 2011

Courtesy Simon & Schuster
Shirley Mason was the psychiatric patient whose life was portrayed in the 1973 book Sybil. The book and subsequent film caused an enormous spike in reported cases of multiple personality disorder. Mason later admitted she had faked her multiple personalities.

When Sybil first came out in 1973, not only did it shoot to the top of the best-seller lists — it manufactured a psychiatric phenomenon. The book was billed as the true story of a woman who suffered from multiple personality disorder. Within a few years of its publication, reported cases of multiple personality disorder — now known as dissociative identity disorder — leapt from fewer than 100 to thousands. But in a new book, Sybil Exposed, writer Debbie Nathan argues that most of the story is based on a lie.
Shirley Mason, the real Sybil, grew up in the Midwest in a strict Seventh-day Adventist family. As a young woman she was emotionally unstable, and she decided to seek psychiatric help. Mason became unusually attached to her psychiatrist, Dr. Connie Wilbur, and she knew that Wilbur had a special interest in multiple personality disorder.
"Shirley feels after a short time, that she is not really getting the attention she needs from Dr. Wilbur," Nathan explains. "One day, she walks into Dr. Wilbur's office and she says, 'I'm not Shirley. I'm Peggy.' ... And she says this in a childish voice. ... Shirley started acting like she had a lot of people inside her."
Wilbur believed that she had stumbled on a remarkable case. She began seeing Mason frequently and eventually teamed up with the writer Flora Rheta Schreiber to work on a book about her patient. The two women taped a series of interviews. In one of those interviews, Wilbur describes the moment that Peggy first appeared. She uses the pseudonym "Sylvia" to protect Mason's identity:
Mason became increasingly dependent on Wilbur for emotional and even financial support. She was eager to give her psychiatrist what she wanted.
"Once she got this diagnosis she started generating more and more personalities," Nathan says. "She had babies, she had little boys, she had teenage girls. She wasn't faking. I think a better way to talk about what Shirley was doing was that she was acceding to a demand that she have this problem."
Wilbur began injecting Mason regularly with sodium pentothal, which was then being used to help people remember traumatic events that they had repressed. Under the influence of drugs and hypnosis, the very suggestible Mason uncovered her many personalities.
Reading through Schreiber's papers, Nathan says it becomes obvious that the writer knew that Mason's story was not entirely true. Memories of a traumatic tonsillectomy, for instance, morphed into a lurid story of abuse. And Schreiber seemed eager to pump up or even create drama where none existed. But if Schreiber had doubts, she suppressed them.
"She already had a contract and she already had a deadline," Nathan says. "She was in the middle of writing the book. So she had the dilemma all journalists have nightmares about — what if my thesis turns out to be wrong as I do my research but it's too late?"
At one point, Mason tried to set things straight. She wrote a letter to Wilbur admitting that she had been lying: "I do not really have any multiple personalities," she wrote. "I do not even have a 'double.' ... I am all of them. I have been lying in my pretense of them." Wilbur dismissed the letter as Mason's attempt to avoid going deeper in her therapy. By now, says Nathan, Wilbur was too heavily invested in her patient to let her go.
I do not really have any multiple personalities. ... I do not even have a 'double.' ... I am all of them. I have been lying in my pretense of them.
In 1973, Flora Rheta Schreiber published Sybil: The True Story of a Woman Possessed by 16 Separate Personalities. The book sold 6 million copies and, in 1976, was made into a TV movie.
"She had already started giving presentations about this case," Nathan says. "She was planning a book. ... She was very, very attached to the case emotionally and professionally and I don't think she could give it up. But she had a very nice little piece of psychoanalytic theory to rationalize not giving it up."
As for Mason, she quickly got the message that if she raised questions about the veracity of her multiple personalities, she'd quickly lose her support network.
"She got the very, very strong impression when she went in and brought this letter of recantation to Dr. Wilbur that if she didn't go with the program she was not going to have Dr. Wilbur anymore," Nathan says. "Dr. Wilbur was giving her 14 to 18 hours of therapy a week. Dr. Wilbur was coming to her house and eating with her, giving her clothes, paying her rent ... so, how could you give up Dr. Wilbur?"
The book succeeded beyond anyone's expectations — it sold some 6 million copies around the world, and in 1976, it was made into a television movie starring Sally Field and Joanne Woodward.
As for the real Sybil, people began to recognize Mason as the patient portrayed in the book and the film. She fled her life and moved into a home near Wilbur. Mason lived in the shadows until her death in 1998.

Sunday, October 23, 2011

How to Spot Psychopaths: Speech Patterns Give Them Away

reposted from MSNBC


Psychopaths are known to be wily and manipulative, but even so, they unconsciously betray themselves, according to scientists who have looked for patterns in convicted murderers' speech as they described their crimes.
The researchers interviewed 52 convicted murderers, 14 of them ranked as psychopaths according to the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, a 20-item assessment, and asked them to describe their crimes in detail. Using computer programs to analyze what the men said, the researchers found that those with psychopathic scores showed a lack of emotion, spoke in terms of cause-and-effect when describing their crimes, and focused their attention on basic needs, such as food, drink and money.
While we all have conscious control over some words we use, particularly nouns and verbs, this is not the case for the majority of the words we use, including little, functional words like "to" and "the" or the tense we use for our verbs, according to Jeffrey Hancock, the lead researcher and an associate professor in communications at Cornell University, who discussed the work on Monday (Oct. 17) in Midtown Manhattan at Cornell's ILR Conference Center.
"The beautiful thing about them is they are unconsciously produced," Hancock said.
These unconscious actions can reveal the psychological dynamics in a speaker's mind even though he or she is unaware of it, Hancock said.
What it means to be a psychopath
Psychopaths make up about 1 percent of the general population and as much as 25 percent of male offenders in federal correctional settings, according to the researchers. Psychopaths are typically profoundly selfish and lack emotion. "In lay terms, psychopaths seem to have little or no 'conscience,'" write the researchers in a study published online in the journal Legal and Criminological Psychology.
Psychopaths are also known for being cunning and manipulative, and they make for perilous interview subjects, according to Michael Woodworth, one of the authors and a psychologist who studies psychopathy at the University of British Columbia, who joined the discussion by phone.
"It is unbelievable," Woodworth said. "You can spend two or three hours and come out feeling like you are hypnotized."
While there are reasons to suspect that psychopaths' speech patterns might have distinctive characteristics, there has been little study of it, the team writes.  
How words give them away
To examine the emotional content of the murderers' speech, Hancock and his colleagues looked at a number of factors, including how frequently they described their crimes using the past tense. The use of the past tense can be an indicator of psychological detachment, and the researchers found that the psychopaths used it more than the present tense when compared with the nonpsychopaths. They also found more dysfluencies — the "uhs" and "ums" that interrupt speech — among psychopaths. Nearly universal in speech, dysfluencies indicate that the speaker needs some time to think about what they are saying.
With regard to psychopaths, "We think the 'uhs' and 'ums' are about putting the mask of sanity on," Hancock told LiveScience.
Psychopaths appear to view the world and others instrumentally, as theirs for the taking, the team, which also included Stephen Porter from the University of British Columbia, wrote.
As they expected, the psychopaths' language contained more words known as subordinating conjunctions. These words, including "because" and "so that," are associated with cause-and-effect statements.
"This pattern suggested that psychopaths were more likely to view the crime as the logical outcome of a plan (something that 'had' to be done to achieve a goal)," the authors write.
And finally, while most of us respond to higher-level needs, such as family, religion or spirituality, and self-esteem, psychopaths remain occupied with those needs associated with a more basic existence.
Their analysis revealed that psychopaths used about twice as many words related to basic physiological needs and self-preservation, including eating, drinking and monetary resources than the nonpsychopaths, they write.
By comparison, the nonpsychopathic murderers talked more about spirituality and religion and family, reflecting what nonpsychopathic people would think about when they just committed a murder, Hancock said.
The researchers are interested in analyzing what people write on Facebook or in other social media, since our unconscious mind also holds sway over what we write. By analyzing stories written by students from Cornell and the University of British Columbia, and looking at how the text people generate using social media relates to scores on the Self-Report Psychopathy scale. Unlike the checklist, which is based on an extensive review of the case file and an interview, the self report is completed by the person in question.
This sort of tool could be very useful for law enforcement investigations, such as in the case of the Long Island serial killer, who is being sought for the murders of at least four prostitutes and possibly others, since this killer used the online classified site Craigslist to contact victims, according to Hancock.      
Text analysis software could be used to conduct a "first pass," focusing the work for human investigators, he said. "A lot of time analysts tell you they feel they are drinking from a fire hose."
Knowing a suspect is a psychopath can affect how law enforcement conducts investigations and interrogations, Hancock said.

Monday, October 10, 2011

A FIRST-RATE MADNESS book review reprinted from the NYT

Are All of Our Leaders Mad?
George Tames/The New York Times
By THOMAS MALLON
Published: August 19, 2011
o   

After examining the psychological histories of a few living leaders and a whole little power necropolis, Nassir Ghaemi, director of the Mood Disorders Program at Tufts University Medical Center, is ready to proclaim a link between madness and achievement that is usually reserved for poets, not prime ministers: “Depression makes leaders more realistic and empathic, and mania makes them more creative and resilient.” It may be fine to like Ike during periods of smooth sailing, but Lincoln and a little lunacy are the ticket when seas get rough: “For abnormal challenges,” Ghaemi insists, “abnormal leaders are needed.” The text makes only one reference to the current president, warning us that while “ ‘No drama’ Obama might be considered the epitome of mental health,” we must remember that “psychological moderation” is not the prescription for greatness.
A FIRST-RATE MADNESS
Uncovering the Links Between Leadership and Mental Illness
By Nassir Ghaemi
340 pp. The Penguin Press. $27.95.
Related
Abraham Lincoln’s “depressive episodes” are well known, and their political implications have been the subject of thoughtful extended treatment, most recently by Joshua Wolf Shenk in “Lincoln’s Melancholy.” By contrast, Ghaemi’s assertion that Lincoln’s “depression conferred upon him . . . realism and empathy that helped make him a superb crisis leader” is unaccompanied by the least bit of proof or persuasiveness. The 16th president is on and off the couch in the space of nine pages that whiz by like a single 50-­minute session. Ghaemi has to get to two other empathic depressives — Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King — who are out there in his waiting room.
Using the “four indicators” he likes to apply to the dead — the available records of “symptoms, genetics, course of illness and treatment” — he sees Gandhi as having a “dysthymic personality” that involved “chronic mild depression and anxiety.” The Mahatma’s practice of nonviolent resistance may well have derived from his psychology, but Ghaemi tends to misunderstand what he calls Gandhi’s “radical empathy,” seeing it as little more than kind feelings toward his enemies rather than a mental capacity to walk in their shoes. In the case of King, the author observes genuine “mental illness” at work, including clinical depression toward the end of King’s brief life. But Ghaemi’s analysis is not helped by the way one of his chief sources, Dr. Alvin Poussaint, a civil-rights comrade of King’s as well as a professor of psychiatry, doesn’t regard depression as a major factor in King’s behavior. And it is weak indeed to take an offhand remark by the Rev. Joseph Lowery — about how civil-rights protesters, facing huge dangers, needed to be “a little crazy” — and offer it as a piece of medical evidence. One wonders if, in his exploration of empathy, Ghaemi might have done better with less transcendent figures than Gandhi and King. The juicy, earthbound Bill Clinton, with his trademark ability to feel one’s pain, comes immediately to mind, but he scarcely enters the author’s consulting room.
If depression did help Gandhi and King to engage with their visions, Ghaemi believes that Churchill’s experience of the “black dog” taught him “political realism.” Alcoholic and perhaps bipolar, the British prime minister had the churning, multiple moods of the “cyclothymic personality.” Churchill, Ghaemi argues, was “never ‘himself,’ because his ‘self’ kept changing,” in an exhausting series of alternations and adaptations. There was a reason Churchill saw through Hitler after his predecessor failed to. “Chamberlain was mentally healthy,” Ghaemi concludes, “while Churchill was clearly not.”
One problem with “A First-Rate Madness” is the way it seems to indicate that almost any mental illness, within limits, will do the trick. The decidedly undepressed Franklin Roosevelt helped win the same war Churchill was fighting, and he did it, Ghaemi explains, with a non-neurotic but “hyperthymic” personality. He was eager to be liked, loath to be alone and interested in everything; he once put down “None” on a questionnaire that asked for a list of “aversions.” But how much sense does it make to attribute Roosevelt’s flexibility to his “mentally abnormal” condition? More than six decades after his death, a doctor can pronounce him “hyperthymic”; the voters on the scene thought he was tiptop.
Roosevelt’s hypersociability became, in John F. Kennedy’s case, “hypersexuality.” The recklessness displayed by the 35th president was, Ghaemi argues — by toting up plane crashes and drug overdoses and accidents on the ski slopes — a family trait: “There is no Kennedy curse. There is a Kennedy gene — for hyperthymia — that is both a curse and a blessing.” The president misused anabolic steroids as well as amphetamines until a “medical coup d’état,” headed by a White House doctor, George Burkley, and carried out some time before the Cuban missile crisis, got Kennedy on the proper regimen of prescription drugs. The result, Ghaemi believes, paraphrasing Kennedy’s urologist, was “a spectacular psychochemical success.” From it the author seems to derive a kind of contact high, one that sends him on a fanciful flight of alternate history: “The military presence in Vietnam, later disastrous, was a mistake made in 1961, when Kennedy was medically ill and psychiatrically erratic. By 1963, Kennedy expressed reservations about further involvement in that conflict. Had he lived, he probably would not have responded the way Lyndon Johnson did.” Or he would have.
Ghaemi does nothing by halves. Admitting that his next psychological autopsy is a “delicate” matter, he moves on from Kennedy’s case to Hitler’s. “Up to 1937, I think his moderate bipolar disorder influenced his political career for the better — fueling his charisma, resilience and political creativity.” Later, though, Hitler’s personal physician, Theodor Morell, began injecting the Führer with amphetamines, thereby lighting “a fuse that exploded the entire world.” Ghaemi would have rendered a malpractice judgment at Nuremberg.
“A First-Rate Madness” goes most seriously wrong when Ghaemi explores a “corollary” of his main proposition, offering examples of how “mental health can hamper leadership.” Using a term from Roy Grinker’s half-­century-­old study of the “normal American male,” the author puts George W. Bush, Tony Blair and Richard Nixon (a “healthy failure” who “had his quirks”) into the category of “homoclites,” men better equipped to follow than to lead. Ghaemi even argues that the successes of “levelheaded” Harry Truman don’t refute this part of his thesis, since Truman wasn’t “handling major crises” during what Ghaemi seems to regard as an eight-year cakewalk from Hiroshima through Korea.
By this point, a reader begins to feel that the author is practicing history without a license, a sensation not diminished by the way Ghaemi puts Wendell Willkie on the ballot in 1944 instead of 1940; puts Kennedy there in 1945 instead of 1946; and has a famous 1960 election-­night anecdote involving Kennedy and Johnson exactly backward. He says that Nixon was “the first president to invite” Kennedy’s widow and her two children “for a White House visit” — never mind that Johnson can be heard, on recordings of his phone conversations, practically begging Mrs. Kennedy to drop by.
“We are far from accepting severe depression or mania in our leaders,” Ghaemi concedes. “But there is reason for hope.” He points to voters’ willingness to elect Senator Lawton Chiles and Rep. Patrick Kennedy after each of these lawmakers disclosed his mental-­health problems and course of treatment. The further electoral leap that Ghaemi prescribes, one that would turn psychological afflictions into positive credentials, remains far off. In the meantime, “A First-Rate Madness” will make a thoughtful present for any politician going through rehab and feeling a little discouraged.

Sunday, October 9, 2011

Study: Wealthy Stockbrokers More Dangerous Than Psychopaths

By David Sirota (best-selling author of the new book "Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live In Now." He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado. Email him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at DavidSirota.com)



The findings are a reminder of why now -- more than ever -- we must refuse to succumb to political apathy and laissez-faire demagoguery.

October 6, 2011  |  
  
Like most people living through this jarring age of economic turbulence and political dysfunction, you can probably recall a moment in the last few months when you thought to yourself that our lawmakers and corporate leaders are all crazy. And not just run-of-the-mill crazy, a la George Costanza's parents, but the kind of crazy that makes films like "Silence of the Lambs" and "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" so frightening.
The good news for you is that you aren't insane for thinking this. The bad news for all of us, though, is that according to two new scientific analyses, you are more correct in your assessment than you may know.
The first revelation came from Dr. Nassir Ghaemi of Tufts University. In his recent book, "A First-Rate Madness," he went beyond merely restating the old adage that anyone crazy enough to run for public office probably shouldn't occupy that office. Instead, the book sheds light on what Ghaemi calls an "inverse law of sanity," whereby tumultuous times like these actually reward and promote political figures who are "mentally abnormal (or) even ill."
Now comes a new study from Switzerland's University of St. Gallen showing that the most successful of the global financial elite probably pose more of a menace to society than known psychopaths.
As the website Newser reported, the researchers "pitted a group of stockbrokers against a group of actual psychopaths in various computer simulations and intelligence tests and found that the money men were significantly more reckless, competitive, and manipulative." Even more striking, the researchers note that achieving overall success was less important to the stock speculators than the sadistic drive "to damage their opponents."
The findings build on similar research in the recent past. In 1996, investigators at Glasgow Caledonian University discovered connections between psychopathy and successful financial speculation, concluding that "with the right parenting, (psychopaths) can become successful stockbrokers instead of serial killers." Likewise, in 2004, researchers at the University of British Columbia reacted to similar findings and created a test to help firms detect "corporate psychopaths" within their ranks. That same year, the award winning-documentary "The Corporation" used World Health Organization metrics to show that if companies really are "people," as our Supreme Court insists, then many of them are mentally ill.
Obviously, these results reflect the not-so-surprising fact that the extreme nature of the modern political process and of today's casino economy inherently self-select for certain kinds of traits. And no doubt, wholly changing that dynamic may be impossible or undesirable -- or both.
However, the findings are a reminder of why now -- more than ever -- we must refuse to succumb to political apathy and laissez-faire demagoguery. Indeed, it’s time to redouble our commitment to strengthening checks on political and corporate power because that power is often being wielded by the most unstable among us.
So what does that mean in practice? It means that when we see a wild-eyed White House ignore the constitution and claim the despotic right to assassinate American citizens without criminal charge, we demand that Congress stop the madness -- rather than quietly acquiesce. It means that when we see a spontaneous grassroots movement physically occupy Lower Manhattan and challenge banks' deranged rapaciousness, we applaud the effort as long overdue -- rather than scoff at it as unrealistic. It means, in short, that we refuse to stay silent in the face of insanity.
And frankly, if we have scientific proof that the inmates are running the Wall Street and Washington asylums, this is the least we should do -- and we really should do a whole lot more.
 

My Turn: Wall Street Protesters Have It Right by Joe Randazzo

(reprinted from the Burlington Free Press)
The concept of solidarity is marvelous. It means supporting people of a kindred spirit in their struggle. Labor union members throughout history have shown solidarity with one another. We should now give the same support to those brave young people who are protesting Wall Street.
This protest movement has come together as a result of a failed financial system. In his article "Laissez-Faire Capitalism Has Failed," by Nouriel Roubini in Forbes, the author writes: "The Financial Crisis has shown the failure of a particular model of capitalism. Namely, the laissez-faire, unregulated (or aggressively deregulated), Wild West model of free market capitalism with lack of prudential regulation, supervision of financial markets and proper provision of public goods by governments."
I like the W.C. Fields quote, "I like thieves. Some of my best friends are thieves. Why, just last week we had the president of the bank over for dinner."
The recent meltdown by companies like Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman, Washington Mutual, and AIG, proves that thieves are alive and well on Wall Street. They had to turn to the U.S government, to bail them out. This was our money, and it was recycled by the power brokers to spearhead more abuses that are raging full-force as I write this. There's no money for public welfare or health, but plenty of money for Wall Street. This is a complete outrage. These banks have proven to be, as Warren Buffet has stated, "Financial weapons of mass destruction."
I'm delighted that the American people have finally begun to lay the blame where it rightfully belongs, at the heart of our financial power structure. Presidential candidate Mitt Romney was quoted as saying, at the Iowa State Fair, "Corporations are people, my friend." He has the nerve to make a statement like this in front of the people he intends to govern. What is his agenda, return to the era of serfs and vassals?
Most Republican and Democratic lawmakers are merely shills for business interests. We have pleaded with them to end the abuses on Wall Street. Unregulated commodity trading has brought about spiraling food and gasoline prices. Wall Street abuses have caused food riots, hunger, and death from malnutrition throughout the world. We are not talking about some mindless manipulation of paper transactions. The results are catastrophic in the real world. People will not have enough food, or oil to heat their homes. Why? Because Wall Street puts profits ahead of human welfare. The only sane voice in the U.S. Senate is Bernie Sanders. He is wise enough to recognize these abuses and recommend solutions.
The American people do not control the market. The market controls us. We are now subservient to the collective energy of the corporate oligarchy. All the precious resources that many generations of citizens have worked and sweated to save and preserve, are being siphoned off by greedy CEOs who enrich themselves while taking our jobs overseas. They are protected by tax loopholes that are sanctioned by our lawmakers.
The mad, frenetic trading of money on Wall Street just shifts wealth upward to more savvy investors. It produces no goods and no real wealth. The greatest assets in America are the men and women who do real work. They make products, teach our children, and cook our meals. The lowest forms of labor are those people who handle other people's money for the sole purpose of exploiting their honest efforts for the moneymen's own enrichment.
When will the next financial meltdown occur? What will be its cause -- default by a major European country, or perhaps a natural or manmade disaster in this country? How many people will be thrown into poverty as a result? It's not sane or rational for the foundation of our financial future to be based on the whims and fantasies of gamblers on Wall Street.
I totally support the protesters.
Joe Randazzo lives in South Burlington.