Tag Archives: Social Sciences

November 20, 2011 · 9:43 pm

Science, Misinformation, and Make-Believe Memories


In what we know about memory, our memories serve a purpose of enabling people to make sense of the past and incorporate it into the present experience of life.  This importance of memories according to Loftus (2003) explains that people are the sum of our memories: what we have thought, what we are told, and what we believe.  In addition, we are not only shaped by our memories, but existence is shaped by our personal experience.  Loftus argues that we “seem to reinvent our memories, and in doing so, we become the person of our own imagination”  (p. 872).

An important distinction made about the power of suggestion upon initial memory of an event and how memory that is manipulated impacts beliefs formed about events.  Information offered by Elizabeth Loftus in, Make-Believe Memories, advocates that memories are malleable and subject to distortion and suggestion.  The following observations about how memory is influenced through eyewitness accounts of crimes:

“Misinformation can influence people’s memories when they are in a suggestive fashion or when they talk to other people who give their version of events. Misinformation can sway people when they see biased media coverage about some event that they may have experienced themselves. This phenomenon would ultimately be called the misinformation effect [Loftus' italics]” (p. 868).

An apparent assumption about initial memory of an event is that it is influenced by suggestion and post-memory influences, but also by the weight of said influences upon the person holding the memory.  A good place to begin in an understanding what misinformation effect actually means.

A dictionary description of the misinformation effect given in the APA Dictionary of Psychology (2007) states, “a phenomenon in which a person mistakenly recalls misleading information that an experimenter has provided, instead of accurately recalling the correct information that has been presented earlier (VandenBos, 2007).  This theory often used in connection with eyewitness memory of events in the investigation procedure.  Loftus cites a cause and effect relationship between what is presented to witnesses to a crime responses to questions asked i.e., “Research on memory distortion has shown that post event suggestion can contaminate what a person remembers” (p. 867).  As a result, a fair assumption about recall of a crime or incident is that the further removed a witness is from the incident and the more times it is discussed the greater chance there is that misinformation effect jades original memories of the event and details.

The position of this article presents the opinion that memory can be distorted by interjecting information and by using techniques which may be misleading to distort original memory.  What can be learned is that misinformation exerts an influence upon what may have been sensed, experienced, and stored in the memory at the time of an event.  The inference is that memories can be altered or changed in intentional and unintentional ways i.e., “Misinformation can influence people’s memories when they are in a suggestive fashion or when they talk to other people who give their version of events”, as cited in (u04d2 Make-Believe Memories, 2010).  A rational conclusion suggests that changes in memories are connected to the suggestions made by the examiner and suggestibility of the person remembering the account.  As a result, an explanation of the misinformation effect contained within the statement made through: post event suggestion (Loftus, 2003) which alters original memory that is stored as suggestion, as well as exposure to other perspectives about the memory-event places influence upon perception.

One important factor in the process is described by Sternberg (2009), as encoding (p. 217). Based on this description, how a memory is encoded –one’s experience, conditions surrounding an event –factors contributing to retrieval, will affect acquisition of information: “the physical, sensory input into a kind of representation” (p. 217) which distorts original sensory input.  Therefore, the misinformation effect suggests that, “suggestion can lead to false memories being injected outright into the minds of people” (Loftus, 2003).

When questions are asked that are suggestive,  false memories are injected into the first impressions of the person being questioned.  Loftus (2003) reports, “that leading questions could contaminate or distort a witness’s memory … Related studies showed that memory could become skewed with various techniques that fed misinformation to unsuspecting individuals” (Make-believe memories).  This practice is associated with techniques which are used in police-witness interviews to a crime.  For example, “Three errors occurred universally: interrupting the witness, asking too many short-answer questions, and inappropriate sequencing of questions” (Fisher, 1995).  A conclusion can be made here that demonstrates that when rehearsal of the memory is interspersed with the injection of questions, interruptions, dialogue, and questions, the initial sensory perception will become adapted to misinformation that affects perception of the original occurrence.

It may seem on the surface that the misinformation effect presents a negative perspective of how memory can be manipulated and the impact upon a criminal investigation.   However, one application of this theory may be of value when applied to research, which could aid in better training for law enforcement professional when conducting witness interviews.  In addition, another application could be that when misinformation is used to correct distorted memories, it may hold properties of value, which present a therapeutic value.  Some examples could be in treatment with those who have experienced traumatic events that present with PTSD symptoms or anxiety related conditions.

Obviously, this article only scratches the surface and more needs to be written on such an important subject of interest.

References

Fisher, R. P. (1995). Interviewing victims and witnesses of a crime. Psychology, Public Policy,  Law [electronic version] , 1 (4), 732-764, http://web.ebscohost.com.library.capella.edu doi:10.1037/1076-8971.1.4.732.

Loftus, E. F. (2003, November). Make-believe memories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied [electronic version] , 14 (3), pp. 255-265, http://web.ebscohost.com.library.capella.edu/ehost, doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.14.3.255.

Sternberg, R. J. (2009). Cognitive Psychology (5th Edition ed.). Belmont, California, USA: Wadsworth, Cenage Learning.

u04d2 Make-Believe Memories. (2010). Retrieved 5 2009, August , from Capella Universisty: http://courseroom2.capella.edu/

VandenBos, G. R. (Ed.). (2007). APA Dictionary of Psychology. Washington, DC, USA: American Psychological Association.

Related articles

Leave a Comment

Filed under Cognitive Psychology, Index, Memory, Perception

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

November 16, 2011 · 11:22 am

Science, Philosophy, Reason, and Life Without Memory


Watching this video is a very sobering look at the way that what the memory provides to an individual in the everyday activities is taken for granted and that without a functioning memory there is no connection with the past, identity, and a conscious way of relating to the present activities of life or the future. A line from the film says it clearly, “I think it is a very dramatic illustration particularly for the public of what it is like to being without memory. For example, this constant feeling that he has just waken up or he has not tasted anything before” (The Anenburg Foundation, 2009). While the video, stimulated thoughts about the value of memory, there is also the thought about how many things could be different, if only some memories could be erased. However, a connection is implicit from the story that it is relative to every individual is and how functioning occurs in life within the environment.

One question which has already been discussed in previous posts in the connection between the brain and the mind. If consciousness and memory are functions of the brain, but also connected to the mind, then there is a relationship between the anatomical structure of the, how the mind operates, neurologically, function, and the wakening experience of awareness in behavior and response. The way that memory is encoded and retrieved forms an understanding of knowing, believing, and behaving. Sternberg (2009) says, “A memory is a mental experience taken to be veridical (truthful) representation from one’s past.  Memories can be false in relatively minor ways … and in major ways that can have profound implications for oneself and others” (p. 198).  In the case of Wearing’s condition, the damage to the brain through Encephalitis affected not only the encoding, but also the ability to recall because of the damage to the Hippo-campus. This raises another observation about the impact of chemical, biological affects to the brain, mind functioning.

It has been established that Teratogens, (Friedman J.M., 1999), affect development of the brain, and also how the introduction of disease destroys tissue, thus disabling explicit memory (Sternberg, 2009, p. 180) from engaging the mind in an experience of conscious recollection (p. 180). A question might be posed about the difference in the absence of explicit memory in contrast to implicit use of information (p. 180). This is discussed in the dialogue by Dr. Michael Oddy who stated, “We ask him if he would like the coffee … But it is all about current events, it is about the surroundings (The Anenburg Foundation, 2009). The events seem to suggest that there is not a reference to past experiences that could have been encoded and recalled, but rather knowing through cognition of present observations in the moment.

The traditional model of memory referred to by Sternberg (2009), in William James (1890-1970) theory of primary memory and secondary memory; then later Waugh and Norman, 1965 (p. 182) give explanation of the components and functions of the memory that are not in tact as a result of disease which destroyed brain tissue. However, the theories as presented, do not adequately offer explanation of ingrained skill or the, “four or five things, he will if questioned appropriately tell you about” (The Anenburg Foundation, 2009). In analysis, it seems evident that one working model of memory does not provide a complete picture without gaining insight from a Neuropsychology model that examines how dissociation of function, “to explain a link between a particular lesion or function” (Sternberg, 2009, p. 207). It seems that there is a correlational relationship to all of the activities, biology, physical structures, or trauma to the brain which in turn affects what happens in conscious awareness that is connected to how perception occurs, what is understood and believed, and what the experience of the life is in feeling and behavior.   How important is this to advancing understanding in the study of psychology?

It cannot be underscored enough that understanding what has been written and engaging with current and future research will build a bridge from the encoded memory that has been described by theorist to provide ongoing and enriched understanding of how the functioning of memory in the mind-brain relationship is enhanced by the value of ongoing research in Cognitive Affective Psychology.

                                                                                                                                           References

Friedman JM, a. J. (1999). Clinical Teratology: identifying teratogenic risks in humans. Retrieved October 21, 2009, from Capella Library: http://search.ebscohost.com.library.capella.edu, doi:10.1034/j.1399-0004.1999.560601.xJans,
Sternberg, R. J. (2009). Cognitive Psychology (5th Edition ed.). Belmont, California, USA: Wadsworth, Cenage Learning.
The Anenburg Foundation. (2009). Life without memory: The case of Clive Wearing, Part 1. Washington, DC: Annenberg Media, Learner.org., DC.

Related articles

Leave a Comment

Filed under Cognitive Psychology, Index, Memory, Mental Health Issues, Perception

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 12, 2011 · 3:32 pm

Happiness: Guilt, Criticism, and Projection


Happiness: Guilt, Criticism, and Projection

An interesting thing that I have noticed about people who feel guilty is that they are not very happy and that they invest a huge amount of energy trying to hide– cover up painful or guilty experiences from being known.  Quite often, all of the efforts to hide something– not apparent on the surface has the opposite effect.  In stead of covering up guilt, it is like wearing a badge that says, “I am guilty”.  It does not take a psychologist to figure out that a person who engages in constant criticism of others is a demonstrating a behavior cue that points to unresolved guilt.  Often, the person who is constantly calling attention, implying, suggesting others weaknesses or faults may be shining a light upon something that obviously is wrong and unresolved in the accuser.

Good Guilt v. Bad Guilt

Developmentally, guilt is an emotional warning sign that most people learn during normal childhood social development.  Guilt’s purpose is to let us know when we have done something wrong—to keep life balanced.  Good guilt operates to help us develop a better understanding about bad choice and danger in our personal behavior.  Therefore healthy expressions of guilt prompts a person examine and to re-examine behavior to prevent making the same mistake twice.  Indeed, an examination of the pathology of unresolved guilt reveals negative perceptions of what others do that triggers distorted schemas, paralyzing emotions, and distorted reactions connected to a distorted sense of self that acts like a mirror reflecting what is not seen by others and known by the accuser.  Unfortunately, misunderstood and unresolved guilt leads to depression, anxiety, and frustration that is projected on someone else rather than becoming a positive force toward change or improvement.  Guilt is normally a negative focus coming from a perception of self that moralizes what others are doing and says, “I am a bad person.  I cannot bear myself.  I am unworthy.”

 

Internalized Guilt brings Externalized Behavior

Often I have said that “the things that we notice and hate about others and that we criticize so passionately, is connected to what we hate about ourselves.  Carl Jung said, “Knowing your own darkness is the best method for dealing with the darkness’s of other people” Unfortunately, the guilt ridden accuser does not understand that criticism is a window into their own darkness.  Often, behavior is hidden so well beneath misdirected concern shared as a concern with confidants, family, friends that infers perceived wrongdoing.  What is really happening is that the guilty accuser uses inference to project their own secretive guilty behaviors on their mirror.  Unfortunately, many of the things that people feel so deeply and are so offensive –we speak so loudly, passionately, so convincingly about point back to self-perception embedded within the neurotic guilt.  Indeed, the ability of guilt to subconsciously influence how perceptions, beliefs, and beliefs about what is seen should not be underestimated, nor ignored.  For instance, in a perfect world of a developing infant, doing, something “bad” is equivalent to murdering all that is good.  As the child develops with a lived-experience of shame, performance based acceptance, and guilt ridden feelings, the inability to dispel the gnawing sense of guilt results in the child owning misunderstood feelings about guilt and he/she enters an “adult– normal society.”  In the adult world, the normal is distorted by the abnormal thinking from development filtered by a perception of life that skewed by feelings of guilt, low self-esteem, and projection.  What happens: the guilt that has been internalized, misunderstood, and unresolved is externalized in projecting behavior toward others when something is seen that feels like the internalized guilt. Then, undigested guilt triggers the guilt-projection system that regurgitates what feels like concern, looks like righteousness, demonstrating rescuing behavior upon others, while calling attention to what is hidden beneath the surface– unresolved guilt that wants to be discovered.

Psychological ProjectionCriticism and Conversations with Guilty People

When I listen to people’s conversations, it sounds like there is something not being said, but is implied.  Quite often it is what is not being said that is more important than what is being said.  For instance, when person helps someone with a situation and someone else gives the pretense of being helpful and recurrent suggestions come up about another person’s faults or problems or even a constant disdain for a particular act, at is the real issue in the conversation?  On the one hand, it may be a person who simply is genuinely concerned, but on the other hand it may be a semantically expressed language cue it that says the person talking is struggling with and projecting internalized guilt.   It makes me wonder if the concerned person really feels guilty about their own internal struggle or particular behavior that no one knows about.   While serving as a pastor, I have had those who felt duty bound to inform me about how certain people are living and taking advantage of their leadership positions and using others.  What is common to all of these conversations is that they are people who represent themselves as crusaders of right, justice, and truth is that they are guilt-ridden people who try to guilt others into conformity and want someone to take up their cause.  Personally, I think about this activity as the subtle work of Satan who is guilty and accuses others of what he is guilty of.  In the book of Revelation Satan is depicted as the one who slanders the innocent and in reality is the one who is guilty.  Therefore, a critical question about this kind of accusation and speculation is motivation.  At this point, a question important to ask is what lies beneath suspicion and why this behavior is happening at this moment?  It may be that there is really a problem that needs to be addressed, but what is the real problem? Consequently, the essential question is why do some people see things that are really not there and act on beliefs that have no substance, evidence, or possess any real real desire to help?  One answer may be that some people have a need to rescue others from what they believe is “bad behavior” because there is strongly embedded guilt that says how bad a person actually feels about self and is motivating criticism, i.e., –the person sees their own failure in the acts of others.  The effort to direct attention to someone else may simply be transference:  an effort to vicariously fix something that feels very wrong in their own life by self incriminating projection of guilt on others. … Neurotic Guilt.

Why does one person believe they are doing right by making someone else guilty– warning, judging, evaluating, devaluing, and invalidating the other persons?

The Voice of Guilt is Saying What?

When a person engages in this kind of destructive inference, crusading to gain support from others, what is the core issue in the accusation? According to Sigmund Freud, it may be projection, which is a psychological defense mechanism whereby one “projects” one’s own undesirable thoughts, motivations, desires, and feelings onto someone else.  Projection is one of the defense mechanisms identified by Freud that is used when someone feels threatened or feels afraid of their own impulses–, so the accuser attributes these impulses to someone else.  What is apparent among people, who make it their life’s mission to constantly criticize without sound reasoning and responsible approaches to relationships with others, is that the critic has an unresolved problem.  It is guilt– the feeling– that comes to the surface when something witnessed in others –a trigger activates  recognition of a feeling associated with a past behavior — “a been there done that experience.”  An important revelation  about constant accusing  is that recurring critical activity may be an open confession of unresolved feelings of guilt and self-esteem issues that are being attributed to someone else.

The Blame Game and What is Really Being Said

Throughout the history of the human race it is well documented that people have been struggling with guilt while denying responsibility.  The Bible records the story of creation when, Adam and Eve sinned; then, made leaves to cover up while knowing what they had done wrong.  Obviously, they did not want to take responsibility for what had happened. Therefore, the response of Eve was to pass the blame on, “it is the serpent that caused the evil act. “  The response of Adam was that it is the woman that you gave me Lord.  Guilt makes people project cover up because they are ashamed and understand that something is wrong and needs fixed.  Guilt makes people accuse because drawing attention to others behavior deflects attention away from the self –the guilty party.  Also, the fear of being exposed motivates people to project judgment for wrong doing upon someone else. Projecting guilt and packaging it in  criticism is a way of verbalizing how deeply perceptions of right and wrong— good and bad affects feelings of personal well being and personal security of the acuser.    Something to think about is that as long as attention is focused on what is wrong, what is being hidden, energy cannot be focused upon what is possible or what can make life effective, nor can you be happy.   Chaplain Murrill 04/27/2012

Related articles

1 Comment

Filed under Abuse, Attitude, Communication, Happiness, Index, Influence, Memory, Mental Health Issues, Motivation, Perception, Relationships, Sociology, Spiritual Development

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

· 1:13 pm

Spirituality: Jesus the Church, Evangelism, Discipleship, and Multiculturalism


spirituality shelf

Which Books are You Reading?

Albert Mohler (2010) said, “As the period of emerging adulthood grows longer, young people are becoming more alienated spiritually.”  Mohler’s statement raises questions about what is occurring in 21st century within beliefs about spirituality. It is apparent that there is a significant departure from the views held by evangelical Christians who have had a predominate voice in shaping opinions in earlier generations. A good question to ask is who or what is influencing the views of this emergent generation and will evangelical Christian maintain their ability to influence this generation?

For social theorists this might be a developmental stage of an evolving culture.  If they are correct what can be understood about the process and what is important to understand? Within the discipline of psychology, there is a principle taught in life–stage theory that every period of life has an identity crisis and skill development must occur that enables a successful transition to  face the responsibilities of the next period of existence.   The theory purports that there is a natural development process that contributes to being able to engage with life and have efficacious responses in the challenges that are a part of the experience of life.  This an interesting analogy to make about how culture is developing, but what is the result of the process?

The results are portrayed in a fundamental gap between generations and that the distinctive beliefs of the past have not been articulated in a way that demonstrates a connection between what has been believed about matters of faith, morality, and God and what is believed now.  One of the questions may be have we advanced as a culture in the view about spirituality? Consider the views of the past generation about spirituality.  Is the earlier better informed than the present?  If so, has the view of the past informed, equipped, the present generation with the essential skills to enter a new time, face different responsibilities-challenges?

Could it be that Spirituality in America is in need of family systems therapy?

Apparently there are perceptions about spirituality today suggests a noticeable departure from traditionally held views of spirituality to a changing perspective. Ed Stetzer (2011) says, “This generation is open to God and spirituality. When asked if they considered themselves to be spiritual, 73 percent of respondents age 20-29 answered affirmatively” (Stetzer).  In response, a question that may not be addressed adequately in literature today is what impact does how the last period–generation approached spirituality have upon the present understanding of spirituality?  What is apparent is that there is a clear disconnect from traditionally held views.  Has a rebellious child of the 60’s 70’s or 80’s been raised and is misbehaving and we don’t like what is happening?

The statistics cited by Stetzer (2001) indicates that the respondents are indeed open to God and have a belief that they are spiritual, which essentially is not different than previous generations, but in retrospect, what does it really mean?

One assumption is that because there is openness and the basic belief about personal spirituality that there is motivation to understand life in spiritual terms and indeed someone—something is defining what spirituality means.  Sometimes I hear people referring to culture as an evil force – a collective consciousness that is leading people away from or at odds with another point of view. However, culture is better understood as “The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought” (Free Dictionary) which describes culture as a defining force in a point of view. Therefore, there are culturally implicit beliefs, behaviors, and values characterizing the way differing generations, groups, races, and religions internalize information and externalize behaviors. As Stetzer (2011) describes this generation, it is not a generalization about all modern culture, but an indication of a group perspective.

A caution about generalizing statistics that needs to be understood is that popular surveys are not scientifically validated and some research that is offered–used to infer conclusions–may not be accurately applied.  An example of this is how people often say that “we live in a Christian nation” which reflects the point of view that historically may be valid, but unfortunately is not a fair nor accurate collective representation of America. Therefore, a larger question that needs to be understood which moves beyond what popular beliefs are is where do the respondents, 20-29 year olds,  get their point of view and what influences within this cultural group impact the perceptions reported, and what conclusions can be inferred about what spiritual communication will engage this emergent generation?

A fundamental question posited here is can this generation be engaged in a discussion about spirituality and motivated to respond without others understanding what prompts what millennial’s value and believe?

Understanding what the behavior means and what is shaping the values of 20-29 year olds is not interesting or appealing to many people. However, a challenge for traditional– modern Americans is to accept that multi-culturalism is shaping the view of people.  If  there is going to be meaningful engagement of the emerging peoples, groups, and cultures, it means that understanding what is driving the point of view, what are the assumptions, and how competence can be developed that enables an understanding outside of self which is motivated by an interest in connecting generations that are disconnected and can benefit from what the other brings to the process.

It is an easy thing to generalize and for adults to look at small children and expect them to understand and behave as an adult.  It is also easy for children to look at their parents and think they are really not very informed and disregard what may be simply not understood.  Unfortunately, in the milieu of cafeteria-style spirituality, the absence of a distinctive clarifying voice  that is having a significant impact upon culture, there is a danger present of morally and spiritually bankrupting the core values in modern culture.

Keywords: Spirituality, Culture, Sociology, Multi-culturalism, Generations, Millennial, Perspective, Perception, Beliefs, Consciousness, Behaviors, Generalizing, Statistics, Research, Communication, an Cultural- Identity.

Related Articles

1 Comment

Filed under Communication, Index, Perception, Sociology, Spiritual Development, Spirituality

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

April 28, 2011 · 6:51 pm

Storms: Choices, Consequences, and Contentment


Connecting Choices to Outcome

Do the choices that are made every day have anything to do with how things work out in life?  Taking  a walk around the neighborhood after a tornado; then taking a drive through the city, what I saw from the storm reminded me that consequences always follow what occurs in life.  I am mindful of how much people take for granted  peace, happiness, and good times in life and how often that we forget that everything in life has consequences –good or bad.  Obviously,  some consequences are not because of the choices that we make in life, they are the result of nature, other people’s actions, or something that we do not understand about the seasons of life.  The fact remains that there are consequences for everything that happens in life.

Outcome and Escapist Thinking

A problem with problems is that we do not like the outcome because the consequences make life difficult to experience.  One of the most common responses to negative experiences  is to try  escaping consequences, deny the impact of our behavior and choices on others, and escape the reality of what those choices bring to life experience.  I am reminded from working in the prison system  that quite often we have inmates come to the chapel and  make a choice to become a Christian and to begin to pursue a spiritual life.  Instead of entering into a process of discipline and developing a responsible faith and transformation,  a common response after becoming a believer is for inmates to begin  seeking prayer and guidance about how to appeal their sentence to get out of prison.  A problem with this thinking is because they do not like the results of their choices, present circumstances, and the absence of a gratifying life.  Instead of accepting circumstances of being in prison as a result of bad choices, anti-social behavior, and hurt and pain for others; they believe that a spiritual relationship entitles them to an immediate change of circumstances.  What is not clearly understood is that having a relationship with God does not mean that circumstances will be removed for a lifetime of choices that are made. When people go to prison it is because they are convicted of a crime –a consequence of a bad choice.  Something that stands out here is that many times there is a mystical, magical thinking about what forgiveness brings in a person’s life that needs to be demythologized.  Forgiveness does not mean that we are not responsible for what has happened and it does not mean that consequences will disappear because we have found faith through God.

Memories and Traumatic Experience

In cognitive psychology theory, the importance of memory is correlated to the way experiences are organized and stored in the information management system within the brain.  The impact of experience upon memories and schemas are  realized through understanding memory encoding, which is the way traumatic or painful experience codes a memory and actually change the construction of brain tissue.  Episodic memories are the most powerful memories that people have and are connected to responses given through the lived-experience of life.  When painful events, invalidation, hurt, or trauma occurs beliefs, relationships, and memories are forever changed –life changing consequences attached to actions that classify memories with specific triggers.  However, it is not that simple when choices that are very painful are attached to the way the brain organizes information, memories, and painful emotions.  For some people, people they just want to say, I am sorry and hope that it will be forgotten because they wish for immediate release and change the painful circumstances choices have created.  However, it is not that simple when there is deeply ingrained hurt and trauma.  When choices are made, words are said, and actions are taken; we may not realize that when one word, one act occurs, it can be life changing. Indeed, how another person experiences our choices are related to how they experience and processes our chosen behavior.

Choices, Prayer, and Outcome

Memories embedded in the psyche, are connected to an internal perception process,  schema that is a part of the biological and physical makeup of the brain.  It is not just a emotional response; it is how an individuals brain and mind organize events, which and regulates how we think, feel and triggers how we behave when episodic memories are activated. Indeed, choices have consequences upon how life will be experienced, encoded, and remembered.   Unfortunately, outcome is not given enough consideration when people decide on a course of action or use irresponsible words, actions, and behaviors.

What needs to be emphasized  and understood is that when there is a painful experience, painful invalidating words, and abusive behavior that destroys trust and boundaries that the consequences of what has happened cannot simply be wished away, prayed away, or ignored.  The important and neglected truth is that  there are some things that are a part of life –like problems, storms, aging, death, and seasons of life that are very difficult to face.  What needs to be  understood is that we must learn to live with consequences and realize that some things will never change and do not go away no matter how spiritual one becomes.  Our prayers might be better focused upon asking for Grace that provides sufficient strength to live within the circumstances in the place our choices have taken us  to live.

Contentment through Spiritual Growth

The apostle Paul said,  ” I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, [therewith] to be content” (Philippians 4:11).   This is not an attitude of hopelessness and/or  surrender to circumstances, but an affirmation of faith that states that whatever circumstances that are faced, contentment can be found in a Savior who is sufficient in the whatever circumstances life may bring.  The fact is that anyone can trust God when everything is always going right.  The question is can you trust God in your circumstances to be sufficient –to provide efficient grace to live through the storms of life?

Related Articles

1 Comment

Filed under Hope, Index, Motivation, Perception, Spiritual Development, Spirituality, The Soul

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

April 21, 2011 · 12:32 pm

Creative Thinking: Living Outside the Box



When you live in a box, think in a box, it is hard to see anything outside the box.  The tendency that people have who think in a box is to reject anything that will not fit in their box, criticize it and throw it away.  Creative thinking is a hallmark of intelligence and problem solving.  A problem presents in life when the focus is upon compliance, pathology, and what is wrong.  What results is that is that all energy focuses upon defending a rationale for what is wrong and virtually what will not fit in the box.  Linear thinkers tend to think on a straight line, not being able to see anything that is not on the straight line.  People call it concrete thinking, close mindedness, black and white thinking, but something to think about is that thinking in a box can be a symptom of someone who needs to control life in certain definable terms to rid themselves of the anxiety that occurs when something does not fit in the box.  Learning to give up control of the way reality is constructed in certain definable terms is a step in developing an ability to think creatively about problems. Thinking outside the box is not unfaithfulness to an ideology; it is being faithful to your own capability to think about creative solutions.  The choice that we have is to live in a box– or not, to use your innate intelligence, to focus upon your strengths in ways to bring a positive outcome.

Related Articles

1 Comment

Filed under Attitude, Cognitive Psychology, Hope, Index, Leadership, Motivation, Perception

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

March 31, 2011 · 4:22 pm

Spirituality Under Review: What is Influencing Contemporary Perceptions about Spirituality?


V9W93MSA9RXR

Hegel's tombstone in Berlin

Hegel Antithesis into Synthesis

In Christianity Today (2005) in an article Eugene Peterson was interviewed about spiritual meaning and the question was asked of him, “What is the most misunderstood aspect of spirituality” (Galli, p. 43). As I was reading , what stood out is one of the core issues in spiritual thought today. The profound misunderstanding about what it means in 2011 to be spiritual person. A closely related question that is important is why do people believe the way they do about spirituality?

My research takes me to one source of understanding contained in the research by Warren S. Goldstein (2009),  who cites a “A landmark article written by R. Stephen Warner in 1993 in The American Journal of Sociology, [who] argued that a new paradigm was emerging in the sociology of religion. His article marked a paradigm shift in sociology of religion between the old and the new, between those who advocate the theory of secularization and those who reject it” (p. 157) These findings draw attention to conflicting ideologies which are important to the field of psychology, sociology, and theology by discussing how, “A dialectical understanding helps make sense of how secularization and sacralization can occur at the same time” (p.157).  Whether or not there is agreement with the approach, what is important is the conclusions that are discovered.

What are the major themes that are included in the argument for a working theory of spirituality in modern culture?

Today, I was thinking about problem solving approaches and the thought came to me that to understand what is occurring a problem must be exegeted. One apparent truth is that there are profound areas of disagreement that are rooted in ways of reason that are not new, but are influencing how spirituality is defined. What is evident from analysis is that there are at least four philosophical influences—approaches to thinking that are impacting how spirituality is being externalized into identifiable constructs in American culture.

Dialectical Processing of Spiritual Ideals: In the field of psychology and sociology this is a common approach used to understand an issue and synthesizing a point of view. The term, dialectic, was first used by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel to describe the development of changing historical periods and social revolutions. … A dialectic process involves three stages: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. In the first stage, a particular idea or set of ideas (thesis) exists that is commonly accepted by most people. In the second stage, a new idea or set of ideas that is contrary to the first (an antithesis) is introduced. The introduction of the antithesis causes conflict as the thesis and antithesis are debated. In the final stage, the thesis and antithesis are synthesized to produce a new idea or set of ideas (the synthesis) that then becomes the commonly accepted thesis (Dialectic, 2001).  This process of reasoning describes understanding in a progression of thought—where new, better supported, contextually relative ideals replace older which demonstrate a progression of thought.

This is demonstrated a shift in thinking in religious-spiritual thought which takes the original hypothesis using collective reasoning from different understandings—beliefs about spirituality utilizing empiricism—science, and induction from  culture synthesizing a point of view as the new norm.

Cultural relativism: which is based upon the assumptions that people acquire most of their personal values from their culture and that values from their culture and normative behavioral expectations vary from one culture to the next” (Ford, 2006, p. p. 70).  Cultural relativism indicates a shift in where definition of concepts, principles of reasoning, and a source of authority for determining what constitutes normal within a culture, group, or individuals.

This can be observed in how particular groups take an understanding of spirituality and attempt to superimpose it upon the masses using culture relativity as a basis for authority.

Logical Positivism: a method of reasoning –its distinctive feature an attempt to develop and systematize empiricism with the aid of the conceptual equipment furnished by modern research methodology.

With emphasis upon the verifiability principle i.e., any procedure carried out to determine whether a statement is true or false or verified by the method of scientific research used.  The meaning of what is trying to be proved is contained in the method of its verification, that is in whatever observations or experiences show, whether or not it is true. If the method used ads up and the logical processes used are consistent with all observations, they are admitted as meaningful: verifiable by method of research.

Logical positivism is an approach–explaining the meanings of terms, but telling us nothing about how things are in the world. Therefore, what is unverifiable using the empiricism methodology employed is deemed unverifiable by any observation and is ipso facto devoid of meaning.

This verifiability principle is the basis of logical positivism’s attack on theology and metaphysics; its characteristic propositions (about the creation of the world, the nature of reality as a whole, etc.) being thus unverifiable, are neither true nor false, but simply meaningless.

Therefore, all arguments either for or against them are equally pointless. At best, the (pseudo-) propositions of metaphysics, like those of ethics or aesthetics, can be allowed to function as expressions of emotional attitudes, as slogans or exclamations rather than statements of fact (Logical, 2002).  This is demonstrated in a movement away from defining terminology and meaning within spirituality with the use of theology, philosophy, or finding meaning in exegesis which makes a systemized empirical method the locus of verifiability as opposed to biblical texts, linguistics, philosophy, or historical data.

Therefore, what is spiritual is verifiable in experience as the methodology, not in an absolute truth of Biblical truth, philosophy, or historical, exegetical study—which is devoid of meaning.

Post Modernism: refers to the crisis of authority of modern culture from the 1960s. Post-modernism, as a way of thinking, points to the culture of a media-saturated consumer society where media images have become more real than lived reality.

In philosophy and social science, post-modernism is associated with the collapse of grand narratives of historical progress, scientific rationality universal ethics and individual identity.

Post-modern social science presents multiple ethical viewpoints, and humans with multiple, shifting identities. Post-modernism may be a shallow consumer culture or the possibility of new identities and new politics  (post-modernism, 2002).

A conclusion about the greatest misunderstand is that spirituality is under construction, modification and syntheses, but more needs to be written in another post.  The real question is, in the understanding that you have of spirituality what is affecting what is believed to be true?

References

Dialectic. (2001). In World of Sociology, Gale. Retrieved March 30, 2011, from Credo Reference: Retrieved from http://www.credoreference.com.library.capella.edu/entry/worldsocs/dialectic

Ford, G. (2006). Ethical reasoning for mental health professionals. Thousand Oaks, California, USA: Sage Publications.

Galli, M. (2005, March). Spirituality for All the Wrong Reasons. Christianity Today , 49 (3), pp. 42-48. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Goldstein, W. S. (2009). Secularization Patterns in the Old Paradigm. [electronic version]. Sociology of Religion , 70 (2), 157-178. Retrieved from EBSCOhost March 25, 2011.

Logical, p. (2002). In A Dictionary of Philosophy, Mcmillan. Retrieved 30 2011, March, from Credo reference: http://www.credoreference.com.library.capella.edu/entry/macdphil/logical_positivism

post-modernism. (2002). In International Encyclopedia of Environmental Politics. Retrieved March 30, 2011, from Credo Reference: Retrieved from http://www.credoreference.com.library.capella.edu/entry/routenvpol/post_modernism

Key Words:Idealism, Utilitarianism, Relativism, Logical-Positivism, Post-modernism, Multiculturalism, Pessimism, Skepticism.
Related Articles

Leave a Comment

Filed under Consulting, Ethics, Index, Leadership, Perception, Postmodernism, Sociology, Spiritual Development

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 24, 2011 · 5:02 pm

Ethics and Recruiting Business: The Problem of Using Invalid Research


United States Supreme Court building in Washin...

The Supreme Court

A n I/O psychologist working as a personnel consultant for a local industry has success in  success in recruiting new business for a consulting practice presents the work being done a presents the report of positive changes in employee retention for companies using the approaches that are being used by the consultant to achieve ROI and understands that business people are with numbers and promotes the approach without scientifically validated research, what ethical problems may potentially create an ethical dilemma?

Problem Identification

Advertising Service within the Boundaries of Competence.

The idea of a psychology professional promoting, advertising, making claims of outcome based upon a particular modality—treatment has the flavor of a multi-level marketing strategy. It raises the question about what is appropriate in making a presentation to a prospective organization seeking services from an I/O psychologist.

What are the issue at stake when promoting services that are within the bounds of competency and professional ethic? The specific area that the example calls to attention is how an organizational consulting psychology practitioner represents professional services offered.  One specific issue which is an underlying consideration is, Principle C: Integrity (Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct 2010) which addresses a Kantian maxim (Ford p.63) which could be express as a self evident truth in the practice of personnel psychology. Therefore, it should be rationally understood that honesty, integrity, and using deceptive practices to enhance business are clearly a breach of ethical practice, but has occurred in the case example.

The question of how to address the issue is the question that is the object of interest in a resolution of the matter of what has happened.  One answer to address how to respond to the dilemma is inherent within the problem solving approach and code of ethic for psychologist.  Maybe, a more important issue is how to prevent unethical breaches might be better addressed by appealing by giving consideration to, 2.01 Boundaries of Competence (Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct 2010) in how practitioners are provided professional training.

Problem Focus

Competence in Connecting Research to Scientifically Validated Outcomes.

The code is specific in directing attention to the fact that, “Psychologists provide services, teach, and conduct research with populations and in areas only within the boundaries of their competence, based on their education, training, supervised experience, consultation, study, or professional experience” (Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct 2010).  If a reverse outline were constructed of the case example, what would be demonstrated is the use of invalid research statistics used to enhance the ability of the instruments used by the practitioner to achieve results in “employee retention” (Ford p. 193) has no empirical basis.

The fact that this information is used in a spurious manner is an indication of either intentional dishonest, or simply not understanding the ethical implications of how research data is to used in an ethical manner.  A rationale for understanding what should be done is expressed in Evidence Based on Test Content, “ Important evidence can be obtained from an analysis between a test’s content and the construct it is intended to measure” (2008, p. 11). As well as using evidence based testing approaches, a level of competency should be evident in post graduate certification to administer and interpret test results.

Process Rationale

Focusing on Competencies Rather than Idealology.

Therefore, to address the particular dilemma indicates that psychologist that work as consultant necessitates developing the ability necessary for problem solving by:

focusing on competencies or “end states,” rather than specific course work requirements to be included in an academic curriculum, the developers of the Principles have acknowledged the reality that competence in any given area may be achieved through a variety of avenues, such as course work, supervised practice, apprenticeships, or seminars and workshops, to name but a few (Fuqua).

Consequently, identifying the ethical problems and developing outcomes that will bring the necessary competency will require the practicing psychology consultant to submit to a competency development process that builds upon existing expertise through restricting activity to areas of competency and developing areas that require expertise prior to representing service outcomes.

References

Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct 2010. (n.d.). Retrieved August 29, 2010, from Amercan Psychological Association: http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx

Ford, G. (2006). Ethical reasoning for mental health professionals. Thousand Oaks, California, USA: Sage Publications.

Fuqua, D. &. Academic perspectives on the principles for training in consulting psychology. . Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research , 54 (4), 223-232. doi:10.1037/1061-4087.54.4.223.

Standards for educational and psychological testing. (2008). Washington, D.C., USA: American Educational Research Association.

Related Articles

Leave a Comment

Filed under Consulting, Ethics, I/O Psychology, Index

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 17, 2011 · 1:30 pm

The Ethics of Psychology and Christainity in Review of a Theoretical Orientation


The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

S.B.T.S. Louisville KY.

The Influence of Theoretical Orientation, Vision, and Values

Does the way that a theoretical orientation, conceptual vision, and underlying values are possessed have a potential to become an ethical dilemma for a practitioner? The simplest approach to an  answer is to consider how core values have impact decision making processes. Every practitioner is an individual holding  a set of value contained in an orientation that is a part of how decisions are made personally and professionally that express individual person-hood. An example of how personal values have an influence can be illustrated in the evangelical Christian value system which is a minority view among psychologists. For those who hold this point of view, it is reasonable to believe that beliefs held will encounter resistance from some traditional perspectives in the field of psychology.  This potential conflict is noted by Meyer (1988) who describes how psychology programs respond to Christian applicants:

Studies have shown that the religious population, particularly in the traditional institutional sense, is underrepresented in the profession of psychology (Malony, 1972; Ragan, Malony, & Beit-Hallahmi, 1976; Shafranske & Gorsuch, 1984). Gartner (1986) found evidence of an “antireligious prejudice” in admissions to doctoral programs in clinical psychology after sending mock applications to graduate programs (p. 486). What is apparent is that there may be a correlation between religious orientation and acceptance into graduate psychology programs.

If it is true that a bias exists against those who hold certain religious perspectives, a potential conflict may be present in the way candidates in the process of applying for graduate programs face disqualification which may indicate a larger issue of  general attitudes about religious issue in counseling setting.  What is apparent is that there is a noticeable gap in how religious orientation is viewed from traditionally held psychological perspective that may be affecting how the delivery of competent training is cited in this research. An a area of concern that is raised in how will those trained in an atmosphere of bias be adequately be considered competent to provide services to those who make up a a religious culture of clients when appropriate education, training, and ethical development is not represented.

There may be a mythology held by some in psychological education which minimizes religion as a non issue while maximizing scientific approaches as maximum intellectual truth.  The result informs an attitude that posits beliefs and values thought to be scientific as accepted principles for determining how religious people will be treated in matters related to faith.  As a result, the anti-religious sentiment represented establishes an ethical norm systematically imposed upon professional practice through training—educating of graduate students.

One way the disparity can be approached is by providing a reasonable approach to addressing religious issues. Then, determining what ethical issues and which principles may be relative to understanding the disparity. Identifying the philosophical assumptions is the foundation of understanding  for where the source of conflict is created.  Four key assumptions relating to ethical research are, ontological, epistemological, axiological, and methodological (2010, p. 4)

Both perspective have one fixed reality—ontological, possess an assumption about how truth is sourced—epistemology, emphasis upon certain values—axiology, and a rationale for how decisions are made—methodology. While both would claim to use a scientific approach that is based upon a particular empiricism, the source of conflict is a fundamentally different epistemology. When the question of where truth comes is asked for a Christian the answer is from God, or specifically what is known in a scientific study of theology about God.  For the secular theorist a philosophy of how truth is determined is either Kant’s formalistic rationalism, a ulitilitarian best case scenario, situational relativity, or contextual ethics.   One holds a theo-centric epistemology while the other holds an anthropocentric-person, experience centered as a  locus of truth.  Therefore, what is reasonably assumed to be true and translated as a value is what each acts from.  In the same way that cultures differ in beliefs, mores’, and values, cultures, peoples, and races must be understood in context with ethically appropriate behaviors. The disparity that is seen in underrepresentation and bias among graduate schools indicate a potential ethical complexity and a potential for conflict in inadequate understanding, training, and representations to enable higher levels of competence.

Providing a rationale with support for the ethical conflict can be found within ethical codes prescribed by professional organizations.   Using a problem solving approach to resolve the potential conflict leads to B.1. Respecting Client Rights B.1.a. Multicultural/Diversity Considerations (2005, p. 7) and  2.01 Boundaries of Competence:

Psychologists provide services… within the boundaries of their competence, based on their education, training, supervised experience, consultation, study, or professional experience … [with] understanding of factors associated with age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, or socioeconomic status is essential for effective implementation of their services or research (Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct 2010).

Based upon the principles expressed, the central question raised related to competency.  Is a therapist who was trained in an educational environment that is under-represented, described with a  bias against the culture of conservative religion, reasonably assumed to be competent and comply with the ethical code’s principle of competence?  If the answer is presumed to be negative, what is apparent is that there is an ethical dilemma and the counselor will be challenged to find ways to ethically,  professionally, and competently address a significantly represented cultural group who are underrepresented in multicultural training.

References

Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct 2010. (n.d.). Retrieved August 29, 2010, from Amercan Psychological Association: http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx

Ford, G. (2006). Ethical reasoning for mental health professionals. Thousand Oaks, California, USA: Sage Publications.

Meyer, M. (1988). Ethical principles of psychologists and religious diversity. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice , 19 (5), 486-488. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.19.5.486.

PhD Weekend experience SOSBS T2. (2010). Minneapolis, MN, USA: Capella University.

The ACA Code of Ethics. (2005). Retrieved October 1, 2009, from http://www.counseling.org: http://www.counseling.org

Related Articles

1 Comment

Filed under Consulting, Ethics, I/O Psychology, Index, Mental Health Issues, Sociology, Spiritual Development, Spirituality

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

December 10, 2010 · 10:44 pm

Finding Balance Between Perception and Expectations.


The image of Seattle being refracted through m...

Who’s Glasses Are You Looking Through?

Is it really reasonable to believe that you can make other people happy by always doing what’s expected, acquiescing to the wishes of others to live in their blessing?  In reality you can never make someone else happy, they may be happy that you gave them what they were wishing for, but it does not necessarily make them happy. Much of the problem with viewing life from this perspective is fueled by a low sense of self and how worth, value, and happiness comes in life. The question that is at the core of the issue is: how does a person get to the point of not feeling that if one does not live up to the “expectation” of others, that acceptance, love, and approval will not be experienced?

Is There a Pattern of Response Connected to the Past?

While there are biological factors of personality and behavior, much of what’s beneath response is grounded in performance based thinking-behavior patterns established at a very early age.  The result is an experience characterized by falsely associating rewards for behaviors with value as a person.  A common response is a skewed sense of identity dependent upon reward attached to performance.  Often, when performance based behavior is thought of by some, it is linked with a negative connotation.  Performance and reward are not necessarily bad components when join together.  Human behavior is understood in terms of motivation and goal.  In Maslow’s Hierarchy of Need, the principles of felt need and motivation for behaviors are illustrated in the basic way that individual’s act out behavior. The response is connected to how needs-drives are internalized, organized, and acted out. At the basic level, a common thread of response is present that supports the function of a healthy, well expressed life, but the response takes on a different pattern based upon signals from the environmental conditions, and perceived outcomes. Another point of consideration is that, humans are not simply deterministic in responses, but free to demonstrate dynamic interaction in response to what is occurring and has happened over the course of life. Knowing why behavior occurs may be more important to living effectively than identifying or classifying behaviors as good or bad. The truth is that everything that we are doing and how we respond is a continuing flow of experiences, information received, and responses that we organize in the unique way that integrates the information of life in our experience.

Is it Wrong to Respond as You do to Life?

Some individuals describe life in terms of black and white—good and bad.  That is characteristic of a personality disorder that is described as “Borderline Personality” and indicates a behavior that presents with emotional dis-regulation response to stress.  The personality illustration points to a reality experienced when we possess a limited view of life that describes everything in terms of good and bad, black and white. When the experiences in life do not fit linear terms of good and bad—stupid and smart, there is a difficulty in managing information that does not fit in the box, which colors outside the lines, and is not really understood.  Looking at what people do and why in terms of what is effective and works and what do not work and is ineffective will provide a way of connecting behaviors with solutions that work.  In response to the many questions that are within this, there is a place for good and bad, mores, values, and spiritual implications.  However, simply describing the moral quality or value principle of what is done, will not help anyone: it more likely than not– will reinforce the same negative, self-destructive patterns of thinking and behaving. Therefore, understanding why behavior, resulting in performance that is motivated by a need for approval, characterizes how individuals respond to expectations and will provide more substantive answers that describing in terms of good and bad—right and wrong.

Healthy or Unhealthy Expectations?

A good question to ask about what is healthy and unhealthy is to look at the impact of actions in terms of what effect is elicited that promotes a specific behavior. An illustration about perspective and the effects of a point of view, internalized is within how Christians generally respond to behavior problems with guilt or conviction. I have a personal axiom that says, “guilt” drives us away from God—to hide as they did in the Garden of Eden and ”conviction” drives us toward God—as Isaiah’s vision of God (Isaiah  6).  There is a distinct difference in how response is given to guilt and how response is given to an understood cognitive, spiritual truth.  One produces neurotic behavior with its own distinct pathology and another with the response that frees choices and produces intentional responses.  Consideration about what is healthy behavior may be best, framed in terms of motivation and what effect is produced.  For example, a well-founded effort leads someone to let another know that they are a drunk and that they need to change.  A good question to pose is: who feels better after the exchange, the one who identified the behavior or the “drunk “who heard those words describing behavior flavored with a character assessment?  Understanding behaviors that identifies the action and misses the person has the missing component– hope of efficacy.

The epilogue is this: if the guilt of not pleasing others is placing expectation on you remember, “Healthy people with good self-worth and identity have a solid foundation from which to operate. They enjoy love and approval and success, but do not crumble without it. Their good feelings come from the inside, not from the external people and things which surround them” (Smith A.W.).

Related Articles

1 Comment

Filed under Attitude, Cognitive Psychology, Communication, Happiness, Index, Mental Health Issues, Motivation, Perception, Relationships, Self Defeating Behavior

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,