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

 

 

Friday Factoid Catch-Up: Teen Coping Strategies

A recent article in the New York Times by Lisa Damour (2017) discussed coping strategies of teenagers.  Along with feedback from practicing psychologists, Damour provided some interesting descriptors of coping mechanisms that may be criticized or possibly overlooked by adults.  The author notes that it is common for teenagers to reread childhood books or re-watch television shows or movies that they used to love when younger to cope with stress.  These simple tasks have been shown to lift spirits and improve a depressed mood.  Here the revisiting of youthful activities or completing simple or repetitive tasks may help teenagers distract themselves from expectations or personal demands.

 

The article suggests that teens who use approach coping mechanisms, such as problem solving, are more satisfied with their lives compared to teens that use avoidance coping strategies (e.g., ignoring or worrying). Parents can help monitor if distractions or coping strategies are adaptive or interfering with one’s responsibilities.  Identifying the source of stress as either something that can be changed or something that is out of one’s control is also necessary and may influence the type of coping skills that could be useful.  Also the author highlights that some situations may be beyond a child’s capacity to handle or manage without support (e.g., death, trauma); therefore professional support may be beneficial.  In short, parents may find it helpful to recognize that coping mechanisms are personal, and though these activities may appear rudimentary, their effects have shown to have a positive effect on how teens manage stress.

 

 

References
Damour, L. (2017). When a teenager’s coping mechanisms is SpongeBob. Retrieved from https://nyti.ms/2kNpzqJ

 

Dannie Harris, MA
WKPIC Doctoral Intern

 

Friday Factoids: Robots could help solve social care crisis, and evolutionarily destroy the function of our mirror neurons at the same time! (How wonderful?)

 

 

International teams of engineers are developing humanoid robots to deal with our ‘social care crisis’.

 

Tasked with the responsibility to interact with the elderly in care homes, these ‘personal social’ robots will be able to be specifically programed to match the personality type of the people they will be working with. According to a British Broadcasting Communication (BBC) article, “It is hoped the new robots will help improve the well-being of their charges by providing entertainment and enabling them to connect better, through smart appliances, with family and the outside world.”

 

My question to you is, what would you do if you could build yourself a robot? Posing this very question to an exceptionally scholarly and brilliant 13-year-old girl (and highly favored niece), I attempted to address this issue. According to her, if she had a clone robot, she would have the robot do all her chores and homework, so she could have the free time to, you guessed it, socialize (the sweet irony of an upcoming Generation Z’er). I suppose this is the sentiment shared by most, which is to have technology do our dirty work, like making our food, cleaning up after us, and now doing our Therapy, so we could then have the free time to do what we really want, perhaps connecting with other people.

 

That is the purpose of technology in theory. In practice however, I am noticing the opposite. As we progress into the information age, where the world is flat; I recognize that people are becoming less connected. Yes, we are coming into contact with more and more people, but we are ‘connecting’ with fewer. Weekly, we are adding to the already hundreds of ‘friends’ we have on Facebook, while grandpa plays chess with a robot. In the information age, our communication is becoming limited to 140 characters tweets or less and Facebook postings of the Panera sandwich and Kale smoothie we had for lunch (because our friends really want to know). Still, we wonder why we feel depressed and lonely.

 

I have an idea. Maybe we should give grants to engineers to program robots to do our Tweeting, so we could have more time to spend with our grandparents.

 

Reference
Robots could help solve social care crisis, say academics<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-38770516>[http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/images/ic/16×9/p04r8ghc.jpg

 

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