In this next post we look at a term by Seligman and Maier, "Learned Helplessness." This is the term that they give to a person who no longer tries to avoid a bad situation because of past experiences in which their effort was unfruitful. For example in the study they found that if a dog was placed in a cage and given electric shock (punishing but not harmful) and was unable to escape that shock it learned to be helpless. This was seen when the dog was later placed into another box in which it was shocked but it could escape the shock simply by moving the dog wouldn't move. An animal under normal circumstances would move where as the dog who was unable to escape the shock in previous experiences did not move.
In our lives we do things because we expect certain results. For example we write novels or blog because we expect others to read and enjoy them. We are willing to be critiqued and to put ourselves out there because we expect that it will make us better writers and give us better opportunities to publish. We also do it because we enjoy it, but this goes along with our expectations. What happens though when we believe that we have no control over the desired outcome. We no longer believe that we can get published and it is out of our control no matter how good we are. We stop doing the activities that may provide us the opportunities to be published (this could go along with self fulfilling prophecies as well).
When we are writing about our characters we can make sense and shape them the way we want them to react by the experiences that they have before the event. We can either give them experiences in which they are successful and gain confidence in their personal power in determining outcomes or we can give them experiences in which they will learn helplessness. This in turn will make the characters more believable to the readers and their behavior will make sense. If in the beginning of your story an orphan boy who has been beaten all his life escapes and immediately begins to lead an army to conquer the demons invading earth, then your readers may find this a little unbelievable. However, on the other hand if this same orphan boy escapes from the orphanage and then is taken in and trained and taught to be a leader, then goes on to lead the army to vanquish the demons it becomes believable. We have all seen this happen both in stories and real life.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Is context more important than actuality
Yesterday we talked about what is normal and discussed several ways in which therapist determine if a person is normal or abnormal. To go along with that there was a study conducted by Rosenhan in 1973 in which he questioned the ability of therapists to determine how normal a person is. In his study he recruited 8 subjects including himself to be pseudo patients. These subjects would then present themselves to psychiatric hospitals complaining of hearing voices. Other than complaining of hearing voices they acted completely normal and gave truthful information except for identifying information. All but one of them was admitted to the hospitals being diagnosed with schizophrenia. Remember it was all based off of the one symptom of hearing voices. Once admitted all symptoms went away and they tried to be model patients so that they could be released as soon as possible.
This is the crazy part the average stay was 19 days with a range from7-52 days. Additionally, none of them were detected by the staff and all of their charts had recorded in them schizophrenia in remission (this is normal when a patient is doing better and is no longer displaying the symptoms of the diagnoses they will receive a mark on their record showing that it is in remission). On the other hand other patients within the hospitals voiced suspicions of the pseudo patients. Other things that were noted was how the staff responded to the pseudo patients when asked normal questions. The staff would generally avert their heads and move past them as if they were not talking to them. Another thing worth noting is that among the 8 pseudo patients they were given 2100 pills. Remember that they were only in the hospital on average for 19 days.
So from this study we learn that it is hard for professionals to distinguish normal people from abnormal people because of the setting that they are in. This also relates to how we see normal and what we perceive as normal. Taking us back to the whole idea of where the setting is dictates how we are perceived and how we perceive others.
In relation to are characters we need to take this into consideration as we put them into different settings. Our characters are not all knowing and so they will perceive things in error. Further, those who are perceiving them will see them in error. Think of Frodo and Sam as they are in Mordor with the orc armor that really didn't fit them right but no one really paid them any attention because to have two hobbits in the middle of mordor is absolutely unbelievable, therefore no one saw the two hobits just two more orcs among the millions.
Take a look at this illusion and let me know your reaction (scroll down to the bottom to watch the video).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1378228/Didnt-spot-dancing-gorilla-famous-YouTube-video.html
This is the crazy part the average stay was 19 days with a range from7-52 days. Additionally, none of them were detected by the staff and all of their charts had recorded in them schizophrenia in remission (this is normal when a patient is doing better and is no longer displaying the symptoms of the diagnoses they will receive a mark on their record showing that it is in remission). On the other hand other patients within the hospitals voiced suspicions of the pseudo patients. Other things that were noted was how the staff responded to the pseudo patients when asked normal questions. The staff would generally avert their heads and move past them as if they were not talking to them. Another thing worth noting is that among the 8 pseudo patients they were given 2100 pills. Remember that they were only in the hospital on average for 19 days.
So from this study we learn that it is hard for professionals to distinguish normal people from abnormal people because of the setting that they are in. This also relates to how we see normal and what we perceive as normal. Taking us back to the whole idea of where the setting is dictates how we are perceived and how we perceive others.
In relation to are characters we need to take this into consideration as we put them into different settings. Our characters are not all knowing and so they will perceive things in error. Further, those who are perceiving them will see them in error. Think of Frodo and Sam as they are in Mordor with the orc armor that really didn't fit them right but no one really paid them any attention because to have two hobbits in the middle of mordor is absolutely unbelievable, therefore no one saw the two hobits just two more orcs among the millions.
Take a look at this illusion and let me know your reaction (scroll down to the bottom to watch the video).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1378228/Didnt-spot-dancing-gorilla-famous-YouTube-video.html
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
How Do We Define "Normal"
Well I am back sorry for not posting as frequently. I have been getting ready for my thesis defense and have actually taken on another job. This is good and bad. I have more money, but less time. Also, I have this horrible cold yuck :) Anyway enough excuses and complaining on with the real reason that I am posting.
One of the things that is important to understand about psychology is that it is more than working with those people who have psychological problems. In fact more psychology is spent on understanding the average person. This is why most of the studies that I have posted have been about average every day people. For this reason when we study psychology we learn more about the average person than we do about those who have severe mental problems and it is for this reason that by understanding psychology we are able to write better characters in our stories.
The question that comes up often is who is "normal" and who is "abnormal." This is an interesting question because of the differences among people. It is helpful to then say that "normal" is more akin to being able to effectively function within the environment that a person is living. All behavior can be seen to lie on a continuum with effective functioning on one end and mental illness on the other end. Psychologists try to determine where a person lies on this continuum by using several different criteria that must be taken into account.
1)Context of Behavior. Where is the behavior occurring?
For example I may function normally within my environment, but if you were to put me in the deep jungles of Brazil I would not be functioning very effectively and in fact some of the things that I do in my environment now would seem "crazy" to the natives that I was living with in the jungle. Another example is that it is normal to go shopping, but if a person where to arrive at the grocery store without any clothes and start to shop we would consider this abnormal.
2) Persistence of Behavior. How long has the behavior been going on?
We all of psychotic moments. (You know the ones I'm talking about where you are up late working on a WIP and forget to save it or your hard drive crashes or ....) The problem is when those psychotic moments turn into more than moments and become frequent moments and day long moments.
3)Social Deviance. Is the person acting in the norm?
I often watch people walking around talking to themselves and conclude that they must have a Bluetooth headset on. If people from 10 years ago saw so many people walking around talking to themselves they would think that our entire society had gone insane. This also can relate to the example of the Brazilian jungle that I talked about above.
4) Subjective Distress. Is the person aware of their psychological problems?
Most of us know when we are doing odd things. We know that we have certain problems. This can help in the diagnoses process. However, there are those that don't know about their psychological problems I see these people as those who would more often than not have a personality disorder as opposed to a mental illness. Take for instance a person with a narcissistic personality disorder. This person is unaware of how his/her behavior is disruptive to others. On the other hand a person with depression knows that they are depressed.
5) Psychological Handicap. Does the psychological problem impede the person ability to be satisfied with life?
People with psychological problems often feel dissatisfied with life.
6) Effect on Functioning. Are the person's behaviors interfering with how they want to live their life?
This is probably the biggest question that must be answered in order to understand the mental illness degree of a person. This is why some people with a mental illness do not necessarily need help. For example if a person needs count to ten before going to bed each night while standing on their bed we would consider this odd behavior, but if that is not impeding the persons way of life then there is really no need to address the behavior.
All of these criteria are subjective and as a therapist is evaluating a person the therapist will be making those judgments based on his/her own beliefs of what is "normal." This is why Rosenhan D. L. in 1973 conducted a study "on being sane in insane places." I will discuss this study tomorrow.
One of the things that is important to understand about psychology is that it is more than working with those people who have psychological problems. In fact more psychology is spent on understanding the average person. This is why most of the studies that I have posted have been about average every day people. For this reason when we study psychology we learn more about the average person than we do about those who have severe mental problems and it is for this reason that by understanding psychology we are able to write better characters in our stories.
The question that comes up often is who is "normal" and who is "abnormal." This is an interesting question because of the differences among people. It is helpful to then say that "normal" is more akin to being able to effectively function within the environment that a person is living. All behavior can be seen to lie on a continuum with effective functioning on one end and mental illness on the other end. Psychologists try to determine where a person lies on this continuum by using several different criteria that must be taken into account.
1)Context of Behavior. Where is the behavior occurring?
For example I may function normally within my environment, but if you were to put me in the deep jungles of Brazil I would not be functioning very effectively and in fact some of the things that I do in my environment now would seem "crazy" to the natives that I was living with in the jungle. Another example is that it is normal to go shopping, but if a person where to arrive at the grocery store without any clothes and start to shop we would consider this abnormal.
2) Persistence of Behavior. How long has the behavior been going on?
We all of psychotic moments. (You know the ones I'm talking about where you are up late working on a WIP and forget to save it or your hard drive crashes or ....) The problem is when those psychotic moments turn into more than moments and become frequent moments and day long moments.
3)Social Deviance. Is the person acting in the norm?
I often watch people walking around talking to themselves and conclude that they must have a Bluetooth headset on. If people from 10 years ago saw so many people walking around talking to themselves they would think that our entire society had gone insane. This also can relate to the example of the Brazilian jungle that I talked about above.
4) Subjective Distress. Is the person aware of their psychological problems?
Most of us know when we are doing odd things. We know that we have certain problems. This can help in the diagnoses process. However, there are those that don't know about their psychological problems I see these people as those who would more often than not have a personality disorder as opposed to a mental illness. Take for instance a person with a narcissistic personality disorder. This person is unaware of how his/her behavior is disruptive to others. On the other hand a person with depression knows that they are depressed.
5) Psychological Handicap. Does the psychological problem impede the person ability to be satisfied with life?
People with psychological problems often feel dissatisfied with life.
6) Effect on Functioning. Are the person's behaviors interfering with how they want to live their life?
This is probably the biggest question that must be answered in order to understand the mental illness degree of a person. This is why some people with a mental illness do not necessarily need help. For example if a person needs count to ten before going to bed each night while standing on their bed we would consider this odd behavior, but if that is not impeding the persons way of life then there is really no need to address the behavior.
All of these criteria are subjective and as a therapist is evaluating a person the therapist will be making those judgments based on his/her own beliefs of what is "normal." This is why Rosenhan D. L. in 1973 conducted a study "on being sane in insane places." I will discuss this study tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
