Psychology

Andrew Scull's commentary in the Los Angeles Review of Books is worthy of your time:- We’re stuck. Descriptive psychiatry is a shambles, as both Taylor and Greenberg’s books help to show, and as the events of this month (May 2013) have made even more dramatically obvious. But, at present, it has no plausible rival. Speaking to Greenberg some moths ago, Thomas Insel, the self-same person who has now given the official thumbs-down to DSM 5, commented casually that most of his psychiatric colleagues: actually believe [that the diseases they diagnose using the DSM] are real. But there’s no reality. These are just constructs. There is no reality to schizophrenia or depression […] we might have to stop using terms like depression and schizophrenia, because they are getting in our way, confusing things. Some might argue that to hear the head of NIMH saying such things is a trifle confusing, or even a little destabilizing. Surely, if someone in his position keeps uttering such unpalatable truths, he threatens the very legitimacy of the psychiatric enterprise. Remarks like these suggest it’s all a con game. Scientologists and their ilk must be rubbing their hands with glee. N.B. Scull's essay is a great example of why book reviews should count for something and why we should regret their 'death'.

Since Yahoo purchased the photosharing site Flickr, there has been a great deal of talk about modernization of the long-neglected platform. The site needed to make some improvements, but no one expected what happened a few days ago, when users logged into their accounts and exclaimed one and all: WTF IS THIS MESS? A major overhaul, coinciding with Yahoo's purchase of Tumblr, was instituted without warning. It was all very confusing and there are reasonable questions about whether the radical...

When it comes to couples therapy, the earlier you go, the better. “Prevention is better than cure. The best time to see a therapist is when the relationship patterns are still fresh and couple dynamics are not written in stone,” said Mudita Rastogi, Ph.D, a licensed marriage and family therapist in Arlington Heights, Ill. Clinical psychologist Meredith Hansen, Psy.D, also stressed the importance of “early intervention or preventative care. Couples who check in every so often with a therapist and work to strengthen their relationship tend to have the most success.” For instance, it’s helpful to see a therapist before you get married, according to both relationship experts. “This is the easiest time to make healthy changes,” Rastogi said. Any transition, in addition to tying the knot, has the potential for conflict, said Hansen, who has a private practice for couples in Newport, Calif. That includes having kids and an illness in the family. Yet, most couples wait until they’re distressed or one partner wants out of the relationship, Hansen said. Naturally, this makes it harder to create positive change. (But it’s not impossible.) Whatever place you’re in as a couple, finding a skilled specialist is key. Below, Rastogi and Hansen shared their tips for finding a reputable expert. 1. Ask for referrals. For instance, you can ask your primary care physician, pediatrician or OBGYN to recommend several couples therapists, Hansen said. Online therapist finders are another option. Rastogi recommended searching on this website for the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy Research and Education Foundation. 2. Interview potential candidates. “Almost all therapists say that they work with couples,” Rastogi said. But that doesn’t mean they’re qualified to do so. That’s why it’s important to ask about the focus of their practice, Hansen said. What should you expect to hear? “You will want to find a clinician who has sought out training and education specifically related to interpersonal relationships and couples dynamics.” This could be a licensed marriage and family therapist (LMFT), a psychologist (Ph.D or Psy.D) or a social worker (MSW or LCSW). Again, the goal is to find someone who’s “focused their education, training, and practice on relationship dynamics,” and “continues to educate themselves and train in the latest couples therapy theories and interventions,” Hansen said. Rastogi suggested asking these questions: How often does the therapist work with the issues you’re struggling with as a couple? What percentage of their work is with couples (versus individuals)? (“A safe bet is 30 percent or more,” she said.) Will they accept your insurance? (“If not, you should figure out up front what your weekly out-of-pocket costs will be.”) 3. Shop around. “It is totally acceptable to meet with a few providers before choosing one that feels best for you and your partner,” Hansen said. How can you tell if a practitioner is best for you? “Pay attention to your own feelings of connection with the therapist,” Rastogi said. It’s important for both partners to feel understood and validated, she said. It’s also important for both partners to trust their therapist, Hansen said. If either of you feels uncomfortable – you think your therapist is “taking sides, encourages one of you to leave the other, meets more often with one of you alone, allows for secrets” – voice your concerns. Remember that therapy is a process, Hansen said. And sometimes either of you (or both) will be dissatisfied with it. Again, speak up, and address your concerns. Also, keep in mind that your problems won’t be fixed in the first few sessions, Rastogi said. But in two to four sessions, “you should have somewhat of a better understanding of your own and your partner’s issues.” Further Reading Red Flags A Clinician Isn’t Right For You How to Choose a Therapist and Other Frequently Asked Questions Answered 10 Ways to Find a Good Therapist How Do You Find a Good

Resting-state fMRI in the Human Connectome Project. [Neuroimage. 2013] - PubMedhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23702415?dopt=AbstractSent via Flipboard

Ungifted: Intelligence Redefined Audiobook | Scott Barry Kaufmanhttp://www.audible.com/pd/?asin=B00CYNLXPC&source_code=soc_twi_nrSent via Flipboard

Imagine you are the driver & your chocolate cravings are unruly passengers If someone gave you a bag of 14 chocolates to carry around for five days, would you be able to resist eating them and any other chocolate? That was the challenge faced by 135 undergrads in a new study that compared the effectiveness of two different "mindfulness" resistance techniques. Kim Jenkins and Katy Tapper taught 45 of their participants "cognitive defusion", the essence being that "you are not your thoughts". The students were told to imagine that they are the driver of a mindbus and any difficult thoughts about chocolate are to be seen as awkward passengers. The students chose a specific method for dealing with these difficult thoughts/passengers and practised it for five minutes - either describing them, letting them know who is in charge, making them talk with a different accent, or singing what they are saying. Another group of students were taught an acceptance technique known as "urge surfing". They were instructed to ride the wave of their chocolate cravings, rather than to sink them or give in to them. A final group of students acted as controls and were taught a relaxation technique. As well as trying to resist the bag of chocolates, the students in all conditions were asked to avoid eating any other chocolate as far as possible, and to keep a diary of any chocolate they did eat over the five days. The key finding is that the mindbus group ate fewer chocolates from their bag as compared with students in the control group. By contrast, the urge surfing group ate just as many of their chocolates as the controls. Diary records showed the differences between groups in their other chocolate consumption were not statistically significant, although there was a trend for the mindbus group to eat less (13g vs. 52g in the urge surfing group and 44g in the control condition). Another way of describing the results is to say that 27 per cent of the mindbus group ate some chocolate over the five-day period, compared with 45 per cent of the urge surfers and 45 per cent of controls. A habits questionnaire suggested the mindbus technique was more effective because it reduced the students' mindless, automatic consumption of chocolate more than the other interventions. Jenkins and Tapper said their results show the mindbus "cognitive defusion" technique is a "promising brief intervention strategy" for boosting self-control over an extended time period. The serious chocaholics among you may not be so convinced. Although the students were recruited on the basis that they wanted to reduce their chocolate consumption, they appeared to show saintly levels of abstinence. On average, even the control group participants ate just 0.69 chocolates from their bag over the five day period (compared with an average of 0.02 chocolates in the mindbus condition; 0.27 in the urge surfing condition). The controls' other chocolate consumption amounted to the equivalent of little more than four individual chocolates over five days. You've got to wonder - how serious were these participants about chocolate and just how tasty were the chocolates in that bag*? Another thing - the researchers included a measure of "behavioural rebound". After the students returned to the lab on day five, they were presented with a bowl of chocolates and invited to eat as many as they liked. The groups didn't differ in the amount of chocolates they consumed, which the researchers interpreted as a good sign - after all, the mindbus group hadn't compensated for their restricted intake during the week. But hang on, they also showed no evidence of greater resistance to the chocolate. Sounds to me like the passengers had taken over the bus. _________________________________ Jenkins, K., and Tapper, K. (2013). Resisting chocolate temptation using a brief mindfulness strategy. British Journal of Health Psychology DOI: 10.1111/bjhp.12050 *Co-author Katy Tapper got

The rate of autism in children of all races is on the rise; however, students who are black, Hispanic, or American Indian are less likely to be identified with an autism spectrum disorder compared to white and Asian students. This is according to a new study published in The Journal of Special Education. In the study, researchers figured out a risk index — a percentage of all enrolled students from a racial group with a specific disability. The index was based on data collected by the federal government from 1998 to 2006 regarding students in special education. The overall risk of being categorized as having autism increased for all racial groups over that time period, from 0.09 percent to 0.37 percent. However, white students were twice as likely to be identified as having an autism spectrum disorder as students who were Hispanic or American Indian/Alaska Native. For Hispanic and American Indian students, the likelihood of autism diagnosis dropped behind the rate for students overall for every year during the study period. In 1998 and 1999, black students were actually more likely than the overall student population to be identified as having autism. But for the rest of the years in the research, they became less likely than the overall student population to carry that diagnosis. So, although every group’s rate was going up, the rates of groups other than black students were increasing much faster. That switch from over-representation to under-representation was “pretty remarkable,” said study lead author Jason Travers, Ph.D., an assistant professor at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. Although it remains unclear why this is happening, some hypotheses are that minority students are being diagnosed with disabilities other than autism or they may be getting identified later than their white peers. The likelihood of Asian students being diagnosed with autism was also higher than that of the overall student population for all of the years that were studied, coming very close to the risk index for white students. Potential under-representation matters, Travers said, because early identification and treatment of autism is considered essential for best outcomes. Identifying minority students “requires a great deal of cultural competence, to ensure disadvantaged children are not restricted from early intervention services,” he said. Source:  The Journal of Special Education

Patients with schizophrenia aren’t the only ones who hear voices.  According to international research, approximately five percent of the population hears voices, even though they are otherwise healthy. So what is the difference — in terms of brain activity — between those who are healthy and hear voices and those who suffer from mental illness? How can understanding the differences help those suffering from schizophrenia? These are some of the questions behind current research being conducted at the University of Bergen in Norway. For a five-year period, researchers from the Bergen fMRI Group have been studying the brain processes that cause people to hear voices. A recent report published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience shows some of the group’s startling results. “We have found that the primary auditory cortex of healthy people who hear voices responds less to outside stimulus than the corresponding area of the brain in people who don’t hear voices,” said lead author Kristiina Kompus, Ph.D., from the Department of Biological and Medical Psychology. The primary auditory cortex is the region of the brain that processes sound. The findings show that healthy people who hear voices share some attributes with schizophrenia patients, as the cortical region in both groups reacts less to outside stimulus. However, there is an important difference between the two groups: those with schizophrenia have a reduced ability to regulate the primary auditory cortex using cognitive control, while those who hear voices but are healthy are able to do so. “Because of this cognitive control, healthy people who hear voices are able to direct their attention outwards. This sets them apart from schizophrenics, who have a tendency to direct their attention inwards due to their decreased ability to regulate their primary auditory cortex,” said Kompus. “These discoveries have brought us one step closer to understanding the hallucinations of schizophrenics and why the voices become a problem for some people but not for others.” “We will do further research on the brain structure of people with auditory hallucinations. In particular, we wish to look at the brain’s networks that process outside voices. “This is to establish whether these voice hallucinations and the outside voices occur in the same parts of the brain. We also wish to establish if hearing voices is a genetic trait,” she said. Source:  University of Bergen

One of my treasured books from favorite author Linda Schierse Leonard, “The Wounded Woman,” had the most beautiful, sacred, royal-looking design on a deep purple cardstock page insert, simply announcing the name of the publishing company, Shambhala.  That card, alone, I remember, was as fascinating to me as the book’s title and the mysterious, wise teachings of Carl Jung, brought to life by the woman author devoted to sharing archetypal insights.  (“The Call to Create” and “Creativity & the Veil of Addiction” are just two others Schierse-Leonard penned.) Back in the ‘80s — before the age of websites — I filled out the card and sent it in to receive their catalog of books and see what else they had up their sleeve.  Over the years, it seemed I’d only sporadically receive a brochure (as fits and starts to publishing houses’ marketing efforts came into the digital age).  Having the same effect as the cardstock insert, though, as soon as the first one arrived some 20-plus years ago, I was captivated anew. Shambhala is perhaps best defined as a Buddhist pure land. Shambhala Publications (Boston) puts out books and audio that quite literally speak to wellness, personal growth, psychology, creativity, mental and spiritual health, relationships and Buddhism.  Though some material is far deeper into the latter than I could ever ponder appropriately, I have never been disappointed when a catalog does show up in my mailbox.  (Nor is my husband.) “The Mindful Path to Addiction Recovery,” by Dr. Lawrence Peltz, expands upon Western thought, offering an enlightening new way of approach to an old, troublesome problem.  “Shadow Dance,” by featured author David Richo, looks good — it is subtitled ‘Liberating the Power and Creativity of Your Dark Side.’ And then there is “Making a Change for Good:  A Guide to Compassionate Self-Discipline,” by Cheri Huber. There are even texts on conscious parenting, crafts, cooking and many mandala coloring books for inner contemplation. Some of the Buddhist Wisdom books are very approachable to laypeople and have ended up on the Shambhala Favorites list.  Many are by sage woman Buddhist Pema Chodron.  Her titles speak for themselves (and I for her good writing):  “Living Beautifully with Uncertainty and Change,” Awakening Loving-Kindness,” and two that uncannily approach Western psychological behaviorist theory, in “Don’t Believe Everything You Think,” and “Taking the Leap: Freeing Ourselves from Old Habits and Fears.” Whether you want to find “the middle way” between Western and Eastern, or simply want to be inspired, Shambhala offers artful, sacred and thoughtful ways of getting there.  Their works truly help, whether when one needs an extra boost to feel connected to self, others and planet, or simply retreat. You can visit Shambhala Publications here.

Is it OK to harm one person to save many others? Those who tend to say “yes” when faced with this classic dilemma are likely to be deficient in a specific kind of empathy, according to a newly released study. In their new study, co-authors Liane Young, Ph.D., an assistant professor of psychology at Boston College, and Ezequiel Gleichgerrcht, Ph.D., of Favaloro University, found that there is a “key relationship” between moral judgment and empathic concern, specifically feelings of warmth and compassion in response to someone in distress. “A number of recent studies support the role of emotions in moral judgment, and in particular a dual-process model of moral judgment in which both automatic emotional processes and controlled cognitive processes drive moral judgment,” said Young. Young said when people must choose whether to harm one person to save many, emotional processes typically support one type of non-utilitarian response, such as “don’t harm the individual,” while controlled processes support the utilitarian response, such as “save the greatest number of lives.” “Our study showed that utilitarian judgment may arise not simply from enhanced cognitive control, but also from diminished emotional processing and reduced empathy,” she said. In a series of experiments, utilitarian moral judgment was revealed to be specifically associated with reduced empathic concern, according to the researchers. The study of 2,748 people consisted of three experiments involving moral dilemmas. In two of the experiments, a scenario was presented to participants in both “personal” and “impersonal” versions, according to the researchers. In the first experiment’s “personal” version, participants were told they could push a large man to his death in front of an oncoming trolley to stop the trolley from killing five others in its path. In the “impersonal” version, participants were told they could flip a switch to divert the trolley. In the second experiment’s “impersonal” scenario, participants were given the option of diverting toxic fumes from a room containing three people to a room containing only one person. In the “personal” scenario, participants were asked whether it was morally acceptable to smother a crying baby to death to save a number of civilians during wartime. The final experiment included both a moral dilemma and a measure of selfishness. The researchers asked participants if it was permissible to transplant the organs of one patient, against his will, to save the lives of five patients. To measure selfishness, researchers asked participants if it was morally permissible to report personal expenses as business expenses on a tax return to save money. This experiment was designed to provide the researchers with a sense of whether utilitarian responders and selfish responders are alike in having lower empathetic concern. For example, do utilitarian responders endorse harming someone to save many because they endorse harmful, selfish acts more generally? The results suggest that the answer is no, according to the researchers. They found that utilitarians appear to endorse harming one person to save many due to their reduced empathic concern and not due to a “generally deficient moral sense.” In each experiment, those who reported lower levels of compassion and concern for other people — a key aspect of empathy — picked the utilitarian over the non-utilitarian response, the researchers reported. However, other aspects of empathy, such as being able to see the perspective of others and feel distress at seeing someone else in pain, did not appear to play a significant role in these moral decisions, according to the research team. They also found that demographic and cultural differences, including age, gender, education and religion, also failed to predict moral judgments. The study was p