Saturday, July 30, 2011

Random Thoughts Version 7.0 and Ideas Substantially Unsubstantiated

1.   Ten years ago I postulated that the rise in the incidence of Autism would be found to be linked to environmental pollutants, acting in concert, that had begun to alter the human genome in very subtle but potentially devastating ways. I think I may be right. There is no scientific evidence that Autism is related to vaccines.

There are likely many types of Autism. Autism is a group of disorders that share a collection of symptoms. Schizophrenia is like this. We don't know what causes it, but suspect from a variety of studies that it is genetically driven and environmentally moderated. There are several types of Schizophrenia. Because we don't yet know what causes it, we can't really tease out the separate diseases that we call Schizophrenia. Autism is in this way very similar.

I suspect that Autism of any type can be caused by many different things, but one thing I surely believe: we will eventually discover that we have potentiated its incidence through our own ignorance regarding our role in environmental pollution. And of course we are likely to find that many other diseases are made worse by foreign trace elements and compounds and may discover that new diseases are the result of these things.

We don't even investigate the dangers of most of the things we pump into the ecosystem, what all ends up in our bodies. We don't have the will or financial ability to do so. Further, we have no idea how to investigate how multiple pollutants react with one another and then within human and other animal systems.

If you looked at an analysis of your own blood and fat and saw what resides there, you would be outraged. Will a rate of 50 out of 100 male children born with Autism (it's currently approaching 10%) be required for us to get off our fat asses?

2.    I can no longer idly sit by and allow anyone to say, "I seen it," (or similar grammar malformation) without correcting them. Since when has this atrocity been acceptable expression?

3.    I like to listen to Perry Como. So sue me.

4.    I bought a commercial popcorn machine and assorted official accoutrement. It isn't here yet, but I am already salivating.

5.    I was a boyscout, literally. I stayed a Tenderfoot, the opening rank. I couldn't seem to get to 2nd Class because we were required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance without error. I kept screwing it up. This metaphorical foreshadowing might have provided me with untold insights and accurate predictions about the course of my life, if I had been wise then.

6.    The incidence of passive-aggressive behavior is rising, and it's easy to understand how. Technology separates us in substantial ways. We need face-to-face time to learn effective strategies, and practice these, for the expression of emotions, especially difficult ones like anger. When you don't know how to express anger appropriately, it goes underground burrowing towards either full frontal or sideways versions.

7.   I hate when people say they are one thing but then clearly demonstrate they aren't that way at all.


Friday, July 29, 2011

Another Summer

I just finished another summer semester yesterday. For the most part, I loved it! I really do like teaching, as it fulfills so many of my needs: a salaried career with benefits, a self-motivated and self-assigned agenda with tons of control, camaraderie with highly educated professionals, watching mostly young folks light up with insight, ego boosting on a regular basis, daily opportunities to be creative, lots of time off, respect (usually), and discounts on cafeteria food. I actually don't think I'll ever burn out. How could anyone?

If I'm really being truthful, teaching also gives me a chance to pretend, for short period of time, that I am smart, not dumb, like my little-boy tapes incessantly loop in my head would try to convince me. Can someone turn off the Wallensak?

Am I smart? Am I a good teacher? Am I a good husband? Do I do the right thing most of the time?


Monday, July 11, 2011

The Secret Life of Metaphor, by James Geary

Metaphor is most familiar as the literary device through which we describe one thing in terms of another, as in Shakespeare’s famous line from Romeo and Juliet, “Juliet is the sun.” But metaphor is much more than a mere literary device employed by love-struck poets when they refer to their girlfriends as interstellar masses of incandescent gas. Metaphor is intensely yet inconspicuously present in everything from economics and advertising to politics and business to science and psychology.
Metaphor lives a secret life all around us. We utter about one metaphor for every 10 to 25 words, or about six metaphors a minute. Metaphor conditions our interpretations of the stock market and, through advertising, it surreptitiously infiltrates our purchasing decisions. In the mouths of politicians, metaphor subtly nudges public opinion; in the minds of businesspeople, it spurs creativity and innovation. In science, metaphor is the preferred nomenclature for new theories and new discoveries; in psychology, it is the natural language of human relationships and emotions.
Metaphor is a way of thought long before it is a way with words.
New research in the social and cognitive sciences makes it increasingly plain that metaphor influences our attitudes, beliefs, and actions in surprising, hidden, and often oddball ways. Metaphor has finally leapt off the page and landed with a mighty splash right in the middle of our stream of consciousness. That impact is making a big splash in the field of psychology, through metaphor therapy.
Through a process called symbolic modeling, psychotherapists James Lawley and Penny Tompkins help clients create and explore metaphors around crucial emotions or personal dilemmas. To learn more about the technique, I booked a session with them. A few weeks before our appointment, my mother died and I decided that my mother’s death would be the starting point for our conversation.
By the time I met with Lawley and Tompkins, my mother’s funeral was over. The initial shock had passed. I had spent a week cleaning out her house, the house in which I grew up. Now things were getting back to normal. The routine business of living had resumed. As I struggled to identify exactly how I felt, to reconcile the contrast between the intensity of my mother’s death and the abrupt return to normalcy, the best I could come up with was, “No different.”
“Anything else about that ‘No different’?” Lawley asked.
“The feeling is everywhere, diffuse,” I said, “like a light blanket, not noticeable because it’s so light. The most remarkable thing about it is that it has so few characteristics. It’s almost nothing, like wallpaper.”
“Anything else about that ‘wallpaper’?”
“You ignore it, especially if it’s drab.”
“Anything else about that ‘drab wallpaper’?”
“I don’t like it, its drabness. It reminds me of the house I grew up in.”
My family moved to the house I grew up in when it was brand new, in the early 1970s. As a teenager, I loathed that house. It symbolized to me everything that was flimsy and oppressive about growing up in the suburbs. The hollow plywood door to my bedroom still had the deep gash cut into it when my brother threw his shoe at me and missed. The plastic towel rack in the bathroom still fell off the wall every time I tried to hang a wet towel on it. The lawn and the driveway were still impeccably maintained, just like every other lawn and driveway on this impeccably maintained street.
In going through my mother’s things, I was struck by how few personal possessions she had. She had lots of bric-a-brac—Norman Rockwell commemorative plates, several plaques with “An Irish Blessing” printed on them, some mildly patriotic trinkets—but little else. The trinkets kept turning up everywhere, not just on the walls but also in drawers, under beds, in closets, many of them sealed in plastic bags.
My mother also had an astonishing array of Christmas and Halloween decorations, which she carefully packed up and stored after displaying for the holidays. This stuff had always made me inexpressibly depressed, something about the impersonal sameness of it all, like wallpaper.
Then, in the powder room closet under some old packets of aspirin, bottles of foot spray, and a variety of stray Christmas tree ornaments (all sealed in individual plastic bags), I found my mom’s 1944 high school yearbook. In its warped and moldy pages was a pile of old photographs along with the drawings I had made as a kid for Mother’s Day, Christmas, and my parents’ wedding anniversaries.
The photographs showed my mom in all her glory - dressed as Mother Earth, wrapped in a bed sheet with a plastic Christmas wreath on her head, during one of the many parties my parents threw in the basement; at the front door during her surprise fiftieth birthday bash, gasping in delight and disbelief as she watched Aunt Peggy outfitted as a drum majorette leading a parade of friends and relatives down the middle of our street; tanning in a lawn chair in the backyard with slices of cucumber strategically placed over her eyes.
Among my colorful crayon drawings - full of balloons, exploding fireworks, and huge red hearts - was an apologetic note in which my mother explained that the drawings of my sister and brothers were missing because they had been ruined in one of the frequent post-rainstorm floods in our basement.
“My mom was fun and funny,” I said. “The drab wallpaper blotted out the colorful patches.”
“Anything else about that ‘blotted out’?” Lawley asked.
“That’s what blots out feelings. Memories of my mother can be splashes of color.”
“When you think about those ‘splashes of color,’ then what happens?”
“It’s not so drab anymore. It comes alive.”
The drab wallpaper concealed a lot of feelings - about my mother, my childhood, the house I grew up in. By following the metaphor, aided by Lawley’s gentle promptings, I uncovered memories and emotions that had been papered over long ago.
Lawley and Tompkins are practitioners of “clean language,” a form of talk therapy developed by New Zealand psychotherapist David Grove. Grove, who died in 2008 at the age of fifty-seven, worked with people suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) - war veterans and victims of violent crime or psychological or sexual abuse. In the 1980s, he began noticing that when clients described their most troubling emotions and most traumatic memories, they always spoke in metaphors.
It is easy enough to label a specific emotion, such as grief, fear, pride, or happiness. It is much harder to convey the actual qualitative experience of that emotion. But metaphorical language can describe the indescribable. Saying that grief is like “having your heart ripped out” or that joy is “popping out of your body like a champagne cork” is not just the most vivid way to express the experience of these feelings, it is the only way to express the experience of these feelings.
“We can so seldom declare what a thing is, except by saying it is something else,” George Eliot wrote in The Mill on the Floss. In saying that my feelings about my mother’s death were like drab wallpaper, I discovered what my feelings really were.
Lawley and Tompkins, who are based in the United Kingdom, spent five years studying with Grove to produce a systematic account of his approach to metaphor in their book Metaphors in Mind: Transformation through Symbolic Modelling. “I noticed, if I didn’t force people when they were talking they would naturally start using metaphor to describe their experience,” Grove told them. “So I realized here was another way to structure experience. I decided that metaphor was a whole language worthy of study.”
Grove paid careful attention to clients’ metaphors, observing that they gradually took on a highly personalized significance. If a client stayed with a metaphor long enough, it became increasingly elaborate, often evolving into a kind of parable that contained an important lesson. The metaphors had a consistent structure and a direct relevance to the client’s experience. And when the metaphors changed, Grove noticed, the people changed, too.
Grove devised clean language as a technique to help clients, those with PTSD and those without, develop their own metaphors - and use those metaphors to achieve emotional insight and psychological change.
Grove’s clean language involves the relentless pursuit of the unexpected and idiosyncratic in client metaphors and the commitment to hold fast to the client’s own words and imagery. Allowing the client’s unconscious to analyze itself through metaphor is key to how Grovian therapy works.
But Grove believed that client metaphors were unique to individuals rather than being of universal significance like Jungian archetypes. He also went out of his way to avoid interpreting client metaphors, a practice he believed only interfered with the therapeutic process. Grove called his language “clean” precisely because it pared away the therapist’s own assumptions, ideas, and biases. Clean language is meant to be a blank slate on which the client paints a metaphorical landscape. The technique, he once told Lawley, is for the client to “interrogate the metaphor until it confesses its strengths.”
To facilitate these interrogations, Grove devised questions to elicit and enhance client metaphors. Grove’s questions address the metaphor itself, not what the client or the therapist happens to think about the metaphor. The therapist’s role is “to pay unbelievable attention to the client’s exact words,” according to Tompkins. “You have to walk side by side with the person through their metaphor landscape. You have to keep the attention on their experience in the moment. The power of directing attention where people don’t normally go is astronomical. When you notice the uncanny in a metaphor, when you hear the shock in the client’s voice, you know you’ve hit pay dirt.”
So, when a client uses a metaphor in a clean session, the therapist treats the phrase literally and begins asking questions of it. “When someone says, ‘I’m a ticking bomb,’ normal logic says, ‘That’s not real,’” Lawley explains. “Clean language asks, ‘What kind of bomb? Is there anything else about that ticking?’”
For Grove, metaphors carry information, and that information can only be accessed through the metaphors themselves, not through a therapist’s or a client’s clever explications of them. Explication is not only unnecessary but also unhelpful. “Questions couched in ‘normal’ language ask the client to comment on his experience,” Grove wrote in Resolving Traumatic Memories: Metaphors and Symbols in Psychotherapy. “Every time he does that he comes out of a state of self-absorption to perform an intellectual task which interrupts the process we are working to encourage and to facilitate.”
That process - the process of personal transformation - is about experience rather than interpretation. Metaphor has a paradoxical power. It distances an experience by equating it with something else, but in so doing actually brings that experience closer. “By talking about what something is not, you understand what it is,” as Lawley puts it
“Our questions will have given a form, made manifest some particular aspect of the client’s internal experience in [a] way that he has not experienced before,” Grove wrote. “The experience is alive and real; not just contained in words or dissipated in answers. We structure an environment internally: the client is going to experience rather than describe what the experience is like.”
Clean language is not limited to therapeutic encounters. The practice has been used by the British police force to help officers with their interviewing techniques; by the British National Health Service to improve patient-doctor communication; in Northern Ireland and Bosnia as part of the post-conflict reconciliation process; and by major consultancy firms as an aspect of their management training schemes.
Caitlin Walker, a consultant who designs learning and development programs that address diversity, conflict, and leadership issues, has used clean language with unruly British adolescents in the context of anger management sessions. Working with one teenage boy who had a long history of getting into fistfights, she asked: “What happens just before you hit someone?”
“I just switch, Miss,” he replied, snapping his fingers. “I go red. Everything just goes quiet.”
“You ‘go red.’ You ‘switch,’” Walker repeated, using the teenager’s exact words and also snapping her fingers. “‘Everything just goes quiet.’ And when it ‘goes quiet,’ what kind of quiet?”
“Like shutters, Miss,” the boy said, cupping his hands around his eyes like horse blinkers. “I can’t hear anything in my head and it’s like I can only see the one in front of me. The next thing I know is people are shouting, someone’s lying on the ground, and I’m in trouble.”
Walker then explored what happened just before he hit someone: “You ‘go red,’ and when you ‘go red,’ what kind of red is it?”
“Blood red. It just gets red and I get angry, like my blood’s boiling.”
“And when ‘my blood’s boiling,’ what happens just before it’s ‘blood red’ and ‘boiling’?”
“It’s cooler!”
“And when ‘it’s cooler,’ ‘it’s cooler’ like what?”
“It’s cool blue, like the sky, like my Mum,” he replied, looking upward and- uncharacteristically - smiling.
“And ‘cool blue, like the sky, like your Mum,’ then ‘blood red’ like your ‘blood’s boiling,’ and then what happens after ‘blood’s boiling’?”
“I get raj [enraged] and attack. Then it’s out of me and I run and look at the sky and think of my Mum and breathe in blue until the red’s gone.”
Through this clean interrogation, Walker helped the boy see the full spectrum of thoughts and feelings preceding a violent encounter. She asked the boy to think of his color metaphors the next time he felt himself losing his temper, and to use the metaphors to get himself out of the situation before fists started flying.
When they next met, he reported back: “You know I go red? Well, yesterday I felt it happening. I get up in the morning, blue and relaxed, then I see Dad’s drunk - red! Then I have to put dirty clothes back on cause he hasn’t done laundry - red! No money for the bus - red! I’m cold and I’m late for school - red! I get to school and get detention and I’m red and anyone says anything it boils! So, I thought, what if I walk to school past the duck pond and I stop and look in the water, cause that makes me blue and if I breathe in blue and think of my Mum then I won’t boil so fast.”
Now, every time this boy feels himself going red, he breathes in blue by the duck pond near his school. With his anger under better control, he has been able for the first time to start building friendships with his classmates.
This translation from metaphor to real life is a central tenet of Grovian therapy. To encourage that transition, Grove often asked clients to actually do something related to their metaphor, a technique he picked up from Milton H. Erickson, a psychiatrist who specialized in clinical hypnosis.
Erickson often used parables in his therapeutic work, coupling these with specific tasks for clients to perform. One of Erickson’s clients was an alcoholic. Erickson told this man a bit about the humble cactus, how the plant conserves water and can survive for up to three years in the desert without rainfall. He then told the man to go to the local botanical gardens to observe cacti. Erickson never heard from the man again. Many years later, after this client had died, the man’s daughter visited Erickson to tell him that her father had been sober since the day he went to the botanical gardens.
Erickson called these tasks “ambiguous-function assignments,” but their role in furthering psychological change has become far less ambiguous since he began experimenting with them. In describing difficult emotions, we often use metaphors of containment: we keep our feelings bottled up, our bad memories sealed off, and our resentments buried. To test whether the physical acting out of these metaphors had a psychological impact on the experience of these emotions, researchers in Singapore and Canada devised an ambiguous-function assignment of their own.
They first asked participants to write down their recollections of a recent decision they regretted. Half the group then sealed their texts in an envelope before handing it in; the other half did not. When subsequently asked how they felt about the regrettable decision, those who had sealed their recollections in an envelope reported significantly fewer negative emotions.
In a related experiment, the same research team asked subjects to write down two things: their account of a news report about an infant’s accidental death and their plans for the weekend. Half the group sealed their account of the infant’s death in an envelope; the other half sealed their plans for the weekend. The researchers found that those who had sealed up the story of the infant’s death recalled fewer details of the event than those who had sealed up their plans for the weekend. Their conclusion: physical closure helps achieve psychological closure.
Grove used ambiguous-function assignments with his clients, too. If, for example, a client had said, “I’m in a brick tunnel and I can’t see either end,” Grove might have sent the client to a transport museum to find out about tunnels, to a bricklayer to learn how tunnels are built, or to a DIY store to buy material to construct a replica tunnel. The goal: to translate insight into action.
After I finished cleaning out my mother’s house, there was only one place left to look: the attic. The entrance to the attic was through the top of my bedroom closet. I knew we never kept much of anything up there, because that was where I hid things - my teenage diaries, in particular - that I didn’t want my mother to discover. Still, I thought I would check the attic just to make sure nothing was left behind.
When I popped my head into the attic, I discovered three dilapidated hatboxes. In each of the three boxes was one of my mother’s hats from the 1960s. One hat in particular I recognized: a pillbox hat made of bright pink feathers. Black-and-white shots of my mother wearing this hat were among the cache of photos I had found in her high school yearbook.
The hat was covered in fine black dust and a few of the feathers had fallen out. But, despite nearly forty years in the attic, it was still intact.
I took the hat home. I had it cleaned and repaired. It now occupies pride of place on our mantelpiece, a little splash of color from my mother.





written by James Geary. This is taken from ODE Magazine online, an edited extract from his book, I is an Other: The Secret Life of Metaphor and How It Shapes the Way We See the World, published in February by HarperCollins.
posted by James Geary on 2/ 7/2011 

10 Terrible Ways to Dump Someone

"I have to figure out how to break up with my boyfriend. It's not that I don't love him, it's just that I'm not in love with him anymore," Jackie, 19

Please, please, please, would someone explain to me the difference between being in love and loving someone? Do you mean, Jackie, your boyfriend has moved into that no-man's land of friendship? Has the intensity of your love diminished? Or are you simply unwilling to say that you don't like him anymore and you just want out? It matters not I suppose, but I've heard those words before from women who were breaking up with me: "I still love you, I'm just not in love with you anymore!" See this from the guy's perspective-very confusing. Here are some other very unsatisfactory, although common, ways to dump us:

1. "It isn't you, it's me." Translation: "It's you, not me." You could be right, it may be you. Trust me, we know what those words mean.

2. Tell your friends before us. I once ran into a friend of mine and told him how sorry I was that he was getting a divorce. He didn't know a thing about it. Ouch. Everybody but him knew. Two months prior I heard about their impending breakup.

3. "I never loved you anyway." Puuleeeeezzze.

4. Have sex with us right before you dump us. This is particularly cruel and unusual punishment. The only thing more confusing is having sex right after you break up with us. Ex-sex is a place very few people can venture safely. Do not try this at home. You could get seriously hurt. Recommended for professional dumpers and dumpees only.

5. Threatening to kill yourself if we don't leave. Also in this category: developing some really offensive behaviors hoping we'll leave you. Like no longer shaving or bathing. If we really love you, though, we might just arrange a visit for you at the local mental hospital.

6. Start a fight, exercise your contempt, so that incompatibility can serve as justification. Make us the crucible of all things wrong with the relationship. At 3 a.m., two weeks later, following an evening of tearful wallowing, we will figure it out. This deception will hurt.

7. Start seeing someone before you break up with us. Isn't that cheating? In our minds it is. This is just avoiding emotional pain, yes? It will put some rocks into the shoes of your new relationship, too.

8. "We can still be friends." Oh, no we can't. Not ever, I'm afraid. To believe that we could be friends with someone who dumps us and throws in this pseudo-ameliorating delusion (the hoped-for translation: "You're not really losing me") is the day we must acknowledge that we are indeed stupid and weak.

9. "Just because." Seriously lame, reminiscent of mommy saying: "Because I said so." Very little satisfaction here.

10. Pretending that everything is fine, and denying that anything is wrong while our sixth sense (yes, we have it) says otherwise. The longer this continues, the more invalidating, if not humiliating, it becomes.

We need you to talk about problems as they arise, which may bring us closer. Yes, we want to talk! But if it's too late, we need and deserve the direct, honest approach. We need clarity. We need concreteness. How about: "I care about you, but I don't want to go forward. This no longer works for me. I'm sorry. I know this must hurt. There are no good ways to say this." There, that wasn't so hard, was it?

Now help us move our stuff into the new place.



























first appeared as a column in a weekly newspaper in 2005, writen by the author of this blog, here edited and changed slightly for this venue

My Two Cents on Making Relationships Work

Yup, I'm going to answer the question: "What does it take to make my (marriage, relationship, love) last?"

1. Enjoy infatuation: it"s the best drug! But wait until you sober up, which takes six months to a year, before making any big commitments. What"s the rush? Ask yourself: How does my partner treat others and me? Bossy? Uncommunicative? Makes fun of me? Lies? Not good signs. Clear? Supportive, gentle and forgiving? Shares the power? Good signs.

2. Get this through your head: what you eventually see is what you will surely get. It is not possible to change anyone--no one has such power! Differentiate between minor (acceptable) and major (unacceptable) foibles. If there are deal-breakers, break the deal. If not, acceptance is in order.

3. Learn the skills of effective communication. If but one of you does not communicate openly, clearly, honestly and kindly the relationship will suffer and may dissolve. Gently confront and fully collaborate. Address issues quickly.

4. Your partner is not Kreskin. If you don"t like something, say, 'I don"t like that.' If you want something, say, 'I want that.' If you like something, say, 'I like that.'

5. Just because your partner got angry does not mean your partner doesn"t love you. But, if anger surfaces quickly, frequently or abusively: Houston, we have a problem.

6. Make your relationship sacred. Spend time every day talking and touching. Continue to go on dates, forever. Have fun together, like friends do.


























first appeared as a column in a newspaper in 2004, written by the author of this blog, edited and altered for this venue

Are You a Pushover?



John, 24, says: "I just seem to keep giving too much. I never have time for myself. I keep volunteering for stuff and saying yes all the time."

Know anyone who acts like John? He spends a great deal of his time catering to others, at his own expense.

When a friend needed help moving, John was right there, even though he had an exam the next morning. He said yes to a fraternity brother who wanted $100 for some tickets, even though John suspected he would never get his money back.

To see whether you are easy prey, answer the following beliefs and behaviors with a "yes" or "no":

1. I feel guilty or anxious when I say "no" to a request.

2. I say "yes" to things I wouldn't do if I was deciding alone.

3. I have little time for myself because I do favors for others.

4. I get talked into helping.

5. I secretly resent it when I say "yes."

6. I fear that if I say "no" to someone, they won't like me.

7. I try to avoid confrontation whenever possible.

8. If people knew what I really felt and thought, they wouldn't accept me.

9. Friends have told me I am too passive or dependent.

10. I have a hard time figuring out whom to trust.

If you answered "yes" to any of these, take a close look at what part you play in setting yourself up to be a pushover.

The more statements you identify with, the more likely it is that you are sending out signals that you can be manipulated.

Our boundaries are like radar, and the vibes you send teach others what behaviors you will tolerate. Everything you do, and everything you don't do, teaches others how to treat you.

These signs are transmitted by voice (tone, volume, and speed), by your body language (eye contact, facial expressions, movements, distance, shifts, etc.), and by the words you choose (assertive, aggressive, or passive). This dynamic is largely unconscious.

The process of shifting from a passive orientation to an assertive one takes time. It may even require some therapy. But the results of this change are impressive and predictable.

A passive, easily manipulated person who becomes more assertive discovers who her friends really are.

Exploitative people won't want to hang around with you. You will have more time to devote to what you desire. Your close friends will have a relationship with you, not what you can do for them. Perhaps best of all, you will like yourself more.















This first appeared as a column in a 2003 weekly newspaper, written by the author of this blog, herein changed slightly to fit this venue.

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

A Few Thoughts on the Casey Anthony Trial

I admit I got sucked into the circus that just ended with a "not guilty" verdict. I watched every second, taped and re watched most of it. I apparently have no life. It's summer, and I have more time these days to waste.

There are a couple of things to say, from a psychological perspective:

1.  There are lots of people who's lives are surrounded by lies and lying. They just usually don't kill their children. By "lots" I mean 1-5% or there abouts? There are several diagnoses that may contain this behavior. These folks don't have much if any anxiety when they tell lies, and are constantly maneuvering to get what they want at our expense, what Peck called "People of the Lie."  If they do have anxiety, it comes as a result of what they think may happen to them if they're caught. No, really. They are all around us; they just don't get displayed as obviously as we saw in the trial. Their surface can be pristine and they can look like compassionate, caring folks. That's scary. I think the jury didn't get that.

2.  Casey had been lying most of her life to her parents and others. She pretended to go to work every day for years before her daughter's death. How about that? What would it take to carry on with that charade? Cold, manipulative calculation. Her parents had learned to accept that she lied: she had stolen "hundreds" of checks from them and used them, stolen her grandfather's money, etc. according to reports. These were only the tips of some very unpleasant, very frigid icebergs, I'd be willing to guess. I am also betting that the family was front and center in the development of these traits, in a variety of ways. This is a sociopathic personality if I've ever seen one.

3.  Make no mistake: her age, race, and appearance were factors in the verdict.

4.  An alternate juror said he kept waiting for the prosecution to provide a motive. This is exactly what I mean. The people I describe don't need any more motive than that they are being inconvenienced. That's all it takes for them to lie, and in some cases, to kill. In essence, you are an object to them; when your usefulness expires, you do, too. They will discard you easily as a friend or lover or family member. Their planning can be well in advance and systematically executed. Maybe she didn't intend to kill her daughter, but her daughter died as a result of whatever she did, or whatever she didn't do to protect her.

5. Generally, these types of folks are also quite narcissistic. They imagine that they are the smartest folks around - smarter than you -  and that they deserve all the attention and accolades and special privileges. This can even extend to not understanding why they should be accused or held accountable for their behavior.

6. Going for a lesser charge to start with, one that may have only demanded a 30 year sentence, might have generated different results.

7. The scariest scenario? I had a patient who feigned anxiety after telling me a simple lie, so as to demonstrate that he was an "honest" person, one with a conscience. That was a setup to telling me a big lie later to which he showed no anxiety, thus getting around any detection of it on my part. Yipes!