Friday Factoids Catch-Up: Leaning into the Z-generation (The erosion and datedness of humanistic values)

“The way to predict future behavior is to look at past behavior.” This statement is often hammered into the heads and hearts of anyone seeking to establish long-term careers in the behavioral and psychology fields. Our psychological tests and empirical research are guided and structured to line up succinctly with this ideological concept. But have we essentially highlighted our dispensability among this generation, when unconsciously promoting that theory?

 

I recently read an article in the BBC news, which discussed the Durham police department in England who are in the process of piloting a new program where an app would assess the risk of a potential suspect. According to the article, the police department will use a cell phone app to determine the probability a suspect will commit a violent act if not detained. During testing, the app called “Hart” was accurate 98 percent of the time when predicting low risk offenders and 88 percent when predicting high-risk offenders.

 

I must admit as a proclaimed Humanist, I had a knee jerk reaction when I first started reading this article. The thought of a mathematical equation making decisions with serious consequences on flesh and blood people frightened me. Images of the movie thriller, “Minority Report,” where an innocent man being found guilty of murder by a cold computer came to mind. However, as I read the article and understood the accuracy of the algorithm used in the app, I felt that my bias towards machines might have been illogical. This is natural because human beings are at times illogical and our conclusions are often wrong. When we watch the news, we constantly see evidence of our “wrong” and illogical behavior. We see examples of the law, being enforced unfairly, based on gender, race and/or class. Moreover, our biases do not start and end with law-based experiences. We also observed biases in how we hire employees, how we pick our mates, who we associate with, which political parties we support etc. And if we were to think about the Hart program more logically, we would come to the conclusion that if we were to be pulled over by a police officer, we would probably more likely prefer to be judged by a cold, heart-less, algorithmic computer rather than a hot blooded cop who is having a hard day.

 

We are living in an age where things are becoming more and more automated, and I believe we can be more rational in how we judge the computers and machines that are taking on roles once performed by humans. Still lingering on the morality fence with Carl Rogers and Hippocrates?  Then consider the following example: we humans are somewhat okay with the fact that 1.3 million people are killed every year in automobile accidents and accept that these accidents are a part of our lives as acceptable human error. If a driverless car were to hit and kill a child running into the streets after his ball, it would be safe to guess there would be a collective public outcry to end to driverless cars. Ultimately holding machines more accountable to the persons who made and designed them. The fear of machines come from an emotional part of our minds rather than the logical part. Therefore logically speaking, I am sure machines will make mistakes; but if the statistics show, they can make less mistakes than we humans can, should we not ethically yield and refer to their specialties?

 

Reference: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39857645

 

Dianne Rapsey-Vanburen, MA
WKPIC Doctoral Intern

 

Friday Factoids Catch-Up: Bringing a knife to a gun fight (with a bully!)–How solutions to bullying have not kept up with our times

We can all agree bullying is cruel, and social rejection is painful. Many of us have been victims of bullying, and know firsthand how difficult dealing with bullying and social rejection can be. It is harder and painstakingly difficult as a clinician (some of us parents ourselves) when we are guiding child clients through bullying experiences, and we face vicariously reliving these buried experiences. It can leave us feeling again overwhelmed and helpless. What is also interesting (and perhaps concerning) is that there seems to be a growing trend of parents seeking assistance from clinicians and other health care providers, to fill out documents for ‘Homebound’ status from schools citing “bullying” as reasons for requests.

 

For those of us unfamiliar with  educational Homebound status, it is a school based program where the state provides in-home tutoring by board certified teachers, 1-2 times per week on a temporary bases (typically ranging from 3-6 months and/or approximately 1 semester period) usually dedicated to medical and/or adverse behavioral circumstances. The belief perhaps by both victim and parents alike, is that the bullying would have subsided (or possibly found alternative new targets,) and the negative effects from the whole unwanted experience would have moderated by the beginning or fresh start of the next semester. Is this wishful thinking or innovative maneuvering?

 

While parents’ desperate attempts to finding alternative solutions to bullying problems through clinicians and services like Homebound sound a bit extreme, consider the fact that reported incidences of bullying have not only increased exponentially, but has also significantly evolved since most of our own experiences as children. Social media has serendipitously become the platform where bullies can become stronger and more empowered. Bullies have upped their ante, whereas the school systems appears to be struggling with an ineffective, outdated “Zero Tolerance” slogan, that is perhaps more comparable in deterring bullying as wearing a scarlet letter on one’s chest in today’s society.  Even the scripts seem to have not changed, remember: “Some people bully because they are bullied at home, and just looking to project that anger outwardly.”

 

As a child these statements were not comforting to me, and saying them to another child as an adult, seems significantly undermining to their experiences. Additionally, while schools are supposedly mandated to investigate incidences of bullying when reported, attaining evidence via social media outlets becomes hampered by tools such as “Snapchat,” in which the social media thumbprint “disappears” after being viewed. To add insult to emotional injury is the fact that the education system is not the only ones who have failed to keep up with the evolving intervention times. The field and persons specifically tasked with studying and predicting human behavior, have also failed to keep up with social media bullying issues. Clinicians and other behavioral health care providers lack the tools, resources and/or adequate trainings to solve this bullying epidemic.

 

As a parent, I became heartbroken after reading an article in the BBC, which accounted the ordeal of a father whose daughter committed suicide after being bullied for most of her teenage years. According to the article, the girl started being bullied at thirteen years old when she confided in a friend about her sexuality. The friend then betrayed the girl’s trust by letting others in the school know about her secret. That’s when other students at the girl’s school began to bully her. The bullying got so bad the girl left her school, but she continued to interact with her classmates through social media. According to her father, his daughter ‘just wanted to be loved—she wanted to show she was a good person’. In response to his daughter’s suicide, the father of the girl responded by taking a picture of what would have been his daughter’s 18th birthday, and posting it on social media. His goal was to raise awareness on the terrible effects of bullying.

 

As a child, I wanted bullying to stop. As a parent, I want to see an end to bullying more than ever. As a budding clinician in the behavioral field, I believe it is our ethical responsibility and hope to ‘do more’.  I greatly support the efforts to end bullying, and I am encouraged by the anti-bullying projects I now see—all of which were not around when I was a child. However, I believe we need a more comprehensive approach to combat bullying. For example, there are many messages that teach younger people why not to bully, but there should be more messages which teach younger people how to cope with bullying.

 

Finally, setting the example has always been the ideal path towards long-lasting change. Often times micro, passive, as well as relational social aggressions have a fixed place in our work environment. We tend to look at co-workers who have difficulty with such experiences as “weak” and stay clear of the situation, lest we be labeled or thought of as childish or immature. Grateful to be uninvolved in work conflict of any sort, we usually find solace in our apathy and inactiveness. “Bad things happen, when good people stand by and do nothing.” After all, isn’t a coworker or boss who exhibits workplace aggression, simply not a bully who has weathered the storms of times to become successful in their personal trade?

 

As a parent with a son entering his schooling years, I plan to teach him how to treat others with care and respect—to treat them in the same way he would like them to treat him in return. It was a lesson I greatly valued and was taught by my own parent, as a child. Unfortunately, that is all I have to offer him in this fight, for now.

 

BBC News Article: Bullied daughter Julia Derbyshire ‘just wanted to be loved’

 

Dianne Rapsey-Vanburen, MA
WKPIC Doctoral Intern

Friday Factoids: Psychology Got Talent! (Or, the art of recognizing and valuing true productivity while promoting self-care in others.)

 

If you would like to become more productive while at the same time having more free time for yourself, you need to etch the ratio 52:17 into your mind. According to an article in the BBC health Column, the ratio 52:17 represents the average time spent working and relaxing for top earning performing employees.  That is, for every fifty-two minutes they spent working on the job, they had seventeen minutes of relaxation, self-care time. The article also outlines that the top ten percent of valuable performers at companies do not necessarily spend more time working than other low performing workers, instead they have periods of deep intensive work followed by short resting periods.

 

After reading this article I thought about work, productivity and more importantly effectiveness.  I realized that there was a significant difference between all three. It felt like an epiphany. Living our lives in an industrialized culture, it is usually ingrained that hard work lasting for long hours was productivity, and the less sleep you got meant you were being a good producer. I have seen many people brag about how many long hours they worked and how little sleep they got. They took pride in their work ethic without paying much attention to the actual results of that work. Who could blame them? If they came in early to work, left late, and looked busy for the ten or twelve hours they were at work, they would most certainly be considered for a promotion, a raise, awards, or perhaps coveted privilege employee of the month parking spots. Not hating the game, just highlighting some players. However, large high volume producing companies like Google, Apple and Starbucks have already aimed to shift that old pods, fully equipped gyms, yoga classes and literally free lunches to staff? A happy worker is a productive worker. Simple deductive reasoning, but not everyone is on board just yet.

 

Unfortunately this specific article, completely contradicts the mindset behind that type of thinking. It said that most managers and supervisors could not even tell the difference between employees who worked 80 hours a week from those who just pretended to. It also cited one study done from the Illinois Institute of Technology which said that scientist who spent 25 hours in the workplace were no more productive than those who were in the workplace for just 5 hours. This showed that there was a clear distinction between work and productivity output. There is not a direct correlation between each of the two.

 

In the field of Psychology shouldn’t the concept of caring for our employees be greater emphasized? After all we are in the ‘taking care of people business’. If we are unable to extend care to ourselves and those around us, how on earth are we to offer those services to others in need? Can you teach others to fish without having a fishing rod (and not using the rod as a whip).

 

“Sometimes the most important thing in a whole day is the rest we take between two deep breaths. ” – Etty Hillesum

 

Reference:

http://www.bbc.com/capitalstory/20170613-why-you-should-manage-your-energy-not-your-time

 

 

Dianne Rapsey-Vanburen, MA
WKPIC Doctoral Intern

 

 

Article Review: Frightening Truths About First Episode Psychosis: Results From a 2011 NAMI Survey

 

 

For many psychologists, greater experience comes at a costly price tag of desensitization. When conducting a routine structured interview, the phrase “Do you often hear or see things that others cannot?” would hardly elicit a noticeable response reaction, from even the most novice clinician. We may unintentionally disregard that the field of Human Services often times involves evaluating very real, sometimes very difficult human experiences.  Treating these experiences with the great humility and reverence they deserve can unfortunately sometimes fade with time.  It is therefore imperative that clinicians be hypervigilent and proactive in submerging themselves into research studies and literature, which aim to connect and help clinicians to understand these distressing experiences. Experiences such as psychosis can be extremely frightening, confusing and deeply personal not only for those experiencing it, but also for those closely related and wanting to help, like friends and family members.

 

The National Alliance on Mental Health conducted an online survey of people who experienced psychosis or witnessed a friend or family member have an episode of psychosis. The 2011 survey followed another NAMI survey that found that, on average, there is a nine-year gap between a person’s first psychotic episode and the time they begin to receive treatment for their diagnosis.

 

The 2011 NAMI survey also focused on finding the possible reasons why people with psychosis go close to a decade before receiving treatment, and possible solutions to solving the problem. First, there was the issue of lack of knowledge about psychosis. According to the survey, approximately 40 percent of the people who had psychosis said they were the first to recognize the problem themselves. These people reported that they realized something was wrong but they did not know what it was, due to lack of understanding about psychosis in general. This problem was compounded by the fact that many people who experience psychosis tend to isolate from others. According to the NAMI survey, around 20 percent of the responders reported that they did not receive help from friends or family when they had their first psychosis episode (NAMI, 2011). Lack of knowledge also proved to be a problem among family and friends. Just like the patients who experience a psychotic episode, family and close friends have a difficult time understanding and recognizing the symptoms of psychosis when they see it, making it difficult to get the help needed for their loved one.

 

A second challenge that prevents psychosis sufferers from receiving treatment is the stigma attached to mental illness. Again, this problem stems from lack of knowledge about psychosis. Respondents to the NAMI survey said that the issues they found the most challenging were confronting the stigma of mental illness, telling others about their psychosis, and worrying about no longer being taken seriously by others.

 

All these issues lead to a similar problem, which is, mental health professionals do not become a part of the treatment of patients who have psychosis, until many years down the line after their first episode. This is a significant obstacle to the treatment of psychosis because many of the respondents to the survey suggested that finding the “right” doctor, keeping appointments, and taking medication were very helpful in their treatment.

 

Observing the results of the NAMI survey, this writer believes that a comprehensive approach is necessary to solve the problem of delayed diagnosis of psychosis. According to the survey, many of the respondents said that they first received information about psychosis online. As such, putting relevant information online would be a good first step in educating the public about psychosis. Also, having an educational blitz in schools, workplaces and other institutions about psychosis would go a long way in both destigmatizing mental illness, and providing relevant information for people to get help for themselves and their family members.

 

Finally, understanding that psychosis can be a frightening, confusing, and very personal experience for any individual. The human exchange of simply gaining information and marking a check symbol in some box cannot (hopefully) be a comforting solution for any clinician, when uncovering someone’s experiences with psychosis.  In fact, if the tables were turned, what kind of qualities would you require from the person sitting across from you, before you felt comfortable enough to open up about such a deeply profound experience?

 

“The psychological equivalent to air, is to feel understood” – Stephen R. Covey

 

Reference: https://www.nami.org/psychosis/report

 

 

Dianne Rapsey-Vanburen, M.A.
WKPIC Doctoral Intern

 

 

Friday Factoids Catch-Up: Differentiating Subgroups of ADHD

Penn State University (2016) researchers recently found that young adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) demonstrate subtle physiological signs that may help provide a more accurate diagnosis and possible identification of types of ADHD.  Their findings indicated that while engaged in a continuous motor task, individuals with ADHD had greater difficulty inhibiting motor responses and produced more force during the task compared to controls.  This research allowed for a more precise measure of motor responses compared to previous assessments based on key-press response.  Additionally, the amount of force was related to the self-report of ADHD symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity.

 

The goal of this research was reportedly to help differentiate subgroups of those diagnosed with ADHD, which aims to inform treatment and offer diagnostic specificity.  The use of continuous performance tests (CPT) in ADHD assessments has yielded variable reviews, although the use of CPT in research has provided valuable information specific to ADHD (Bjorn, Uebel-von Sandersleben, Wiedmann, & Rothenberger, 2015).  Regardless, research indicates that CPT provides information specific to sustained attention and impulsivity, and can be utilized as a tool to aid diagnosis and per Penn State researchers, possibly identify more subtle signs that could directly inform treatment and interventions.

 

References

Albrecht, B., Uebel-von Sanderslebem, H., Wiedmann, K., & Rothenberger, A. (2015). ADHD history of the concept: the case of the continuous performance test. Current Developmental Disorders Reports, 2(1), p. 10-22.

 

Penn State. (2016). Inhibitory motor control problems may be unique identifier in adults with ADHD. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161116103443.htm

 

Dannie Harris, MA
WKPIC Doctoral Intern