It’s time to start writing again. When I start doing three-part updates on Facebook, that just might mean that a blog post would be a better use of my thoughts, no?

I’ve missed this.

Written for PSYC6211, June 2009.

IQ: incomplete, questionable

In popular usage, IQ has come to mean something very different than a measure of one’s academic aptitude. The population at large seems to overestimate the application of “IQ” in the same way they underestimate the scientific utility of a “theory.” What, exactly, does IQ measure?

The first standardized intelligence tests appeared just after the turn of the 20th century. At the request of the French government, researchers Binet and Simon developed the first reliable test of general intelligence. This test, intended to identify children who might need additional instruction and to moderate the bias of teacher assessments, became quite popular. By 1916, Stanford theorists introduced the scoring system we now know as the intelligence quotient (IQ), or the relationship between a child’s mental age and chronological age (Weiten, 2008). As a predictor of general scholastic achievement, IQ functions reasonably well, with a positive correlation of .65 with academic achievement (Weiten).

Beyond its intended purpose, however, the utility of the intelligence quotient wanes. While IQ can predict success, it does not explain why any given person may be successful. While it can identify children in need of supplemental instruction, it does not highlight what kind of help they require. During the 1980s, newer models of intelligence emerged as Sternberg identified three different skills sets of intelligence: verbal, practical, and social (Weiten, 2008) and Gardner posited seven modes of intelligence. Building on this idea of divided functionality, but moving into a more measurable framework, Naglieri & Das introduced the planning, attention, simultaneous, and successive (PASS) model of cognition and a Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) instrument to measure the PASS processes (Naglieri & Rojahn, 2004). Unlike general intelligence models, PASS identifies specific cognitive skills, including the physiological residence for each (Das, 2002).

Figure from Dass, 2002.

Planning
Planning, aka “the executive function,” resides in the brain’s frontal lobe. Planning skills apply to decision making, problem solving, and understanding the big-picture (Das, 2002).

Attention
Also known as arousal, attention is the ability to choose where to focus and what to ignore. While the attention function is difficult to pinpoint, it is likely that arousal first works in the brainstem, followed by frontal lobe involvement in directing attention (Das, 2002).

Simultaneous
The ability to see the whole and categorize its parts simultaneously is believed to reside in the cortex and in the occipital and parietal lobes (Das, 2002).

Successive
This processing skill allows filtration and ordering of stimuli into a specific and more manageable order via the frontal and temporal lobes (Das, 2002).

The testing instrument of the PASS model, the CAS, measures cognitive processes in normal, advanced, or regressed children aged 5 to 17 and in adults with reading difficulty and/or mental retardation (Das, 2002). Unlike the most widely used IQ test, the WISC-III — which measure ability within a context of expected explicit knowledge — the CAS emphasizes ability removed from the context of academic achievement (Naglieri & Rojahn, 2004). The test avoids achievement-driven questions, giving a clearer picture of actual ability (Naglieri, De Lauder, Goldstein, & Schwebech, 2006) with most of the bias from social background removed. And, in multiple comparative studies, the CAS has more strongly correlated with acheivement as measured by the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement. In a 2006 paper, Naglieri and his colleagues presented a consistent .80 correlation between the CAS and the WJ-III, compared with only a .65 correlation between the most-used general IQ test and the WJ-III (Naglieri, De Lauder, Goldstein, & Schwebech, 2006).

Not only does the CAS have a higher level of validity, it is also more useful than the traditional tests of general intelligence. For most people, scores across the four cognitive abilities are fairly well aligned. In his 2002 paper, Das presented findings that children with ADD showed significant drops planning and attention skills, while testing normal on other measures. This implies a possible diagnostic utility for the CAS. In another case, a post-auto-accident 12-year-old boy tested normally on traditional IQ measures, even as his performance at school plummeted. The CAS revealed that while this boy’s simultaneous and successive scores were normal (100 and 110), his planning and attention scores had dropped through the floor (73 and 79). Understanding which portions of a child’s cognitive abilities have declined can not only allow for better educational assistance, but also can direct doctors to possible areas of brain damage.

Like any instrument, the CAS is not perfect. I’d love to see a version of this test geared toward normal and advanced-level adults. The CAS provides much more data than other tests, but it still does not give a window into “rational quotient,” a concept Stanovich (2009) explores in his new book. But, while offering predictive value, the CAS also provides an understanding of specific cognitive abilities — an understanding that will certainly inform future areas of intelligence research.

References

Das, J. (2002). A better look at intelligence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 28. Retrieved June 23, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Naglieri, J., De Lauder, B., Goldstein, S., & Schwebech, A. (2006). WISC-III and CAS: Which correlates higher with achievement for a clinical sample?. School Psychology Quarterly, 21(1), 62-76. Retrieved June 23, 2009, from PsycARTICLES database.

Naglieri, J., & Rojahn, J. (2004). Construct Validity of the PASS Theory and CAS: Correlations With Achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 174-181. Retrieved June 23, 2009, from PsycARTICLES database.

Stanovich, K. E., (2009). What intelligence tests miss: The psychology of rational thought. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Weiten, W. (2008). Psychology: Themes and variations. Briefer version. (7th ed.). Belmont, California: Thomson Higher Education.

Well, pull my string. I knew I wrote a good paper for this week’s first assignment, but I wasn’t expecting this:

WOW! This became really tough this week to pick out the SUPER POSTINGS. Many of you really kicked it up several notches and are getting into the SOARING phase early. I am impressed. But I can only pick one Super Posting for each DQ so here we go….

SUPER POSTING #1

This was the toughest to pick out of the lot. Several of you had excellent content and wonderful references. But Allison inched out in front and took the prize on this one! WAY TO GO, ALLISON!!! KEEP UP THE MOST EXCELLENT WORK!!!

“Most excellent,” huh? Why am I suddenly wanting to time travel in a phone booth with Keanu Reeves to have a chat with the “Freud dude?”

Anyway, yay me.

Writen for PSYC 6211
Contemporary Issues in Psychology
Dr. Geyer
June 10, 2009

Maladaptive adaptation: Biological/evolutionary perspectives on aggression

Since the beginning of life, adaptation to environment has allowed both humans and animals to evolve — to retain traits valuable for reproduction and survival. Many think of evolution only in terms of physical characteristics, but even Charles Darwin recognized that behavioral traits can also persist through generations (Weiten, 2008). Aggression, one such behavioral trait, endures and is common throughout the animal kingdom (Archer & Côté, 2005)(Couppis & Kennedy, 2008). Aggression has long given humans advantages. In large-scale groups, authoritarian aggression creates societal cohesion. People often prefer the restrictive, but familiar, climate of a punitive, authoritarian society, and choose well-known rules over personal freedom. Because of this, punitive societies not only do not shrink; they may thrive (Kessler & Cohrs, 2008). Outside of society, aggressive tendencies allow animals — more often, males — to find and keep mates, gain territory and resources, provide for offspring, fend off would-be intruders, and survive attacks (Archer & Côté, 2005). With such benefits, it’s not a surprise that aggression finds roots in biology, both in genetic makeup and in individuals’ own brain circuitry.

Don’t blame me; it’s my genes!
Fresnan, et al. (2007) showed that schizophrenic patients possessing the “novelty-seeking” gene (7R allele on DRD4) also had much stronger tendencies toward aggressive behavior than those without that gene. Low monoamine oxidase A activity has long been linked to antisocial behavior, enough so that MAOA is nicknamed the “warrior gene.” New research demonstrates that the link can even predict an individual’s likeliness both to join a gang and to use weapons in altercations (Beaver, DeLisi, Vaughn, & Barnes, in press).

Once an animal is genetically predisposed toward aggression, physiology ensures that they will remain so:

Aggression is addictive.
Aggressive behavior has been demonstrated to “light up” the nucleus accumbens (NAc), also known as the reward center of the brain. This flood of dopamine to the NAc is similar in nature to that experienced with drug and alcohol abuse (Couppis & Kennedy, 2008).

Aggression breeds aggression.
The initiation of violent behavior sparks a feedback loop. In cases of defensive aggression (protecting oneself from attack), the brain creates a feedback loop. While this flood of neurotransmitters likely developed to allowed animals to survive prolonged attacks, dopamine and norepinephrine not only allow protection, but make animals (including humans) more likely to initiate attacks in the future (Siegel, Bhatt, Bhatt, & Zalcman, 2007).

Aggression is habitual.
Research has shown that animals become accustomed to their “fix.” In one study, male rats from breeding pairs were exposed to an intruder at the same time each day for 10 days. By the 11th day, the NAc levels of dopamine rose even without the presence of the intruder rat (van Erp & Miczek, 2007).

Alcohol can stimulate aggression.
In a follow-on study, rats were allowed small amounts of alcohol at the same time each day. Eventually, the mice showed levels of DA neurotransmitter in the NAc elevated to 140% of baseline, even before alcohol was provided. These same rats exhibited noticeably higher levels of biting and aggression compared to non-drinking controls even when they were not drinking alcohol (van Erp & Miczek, 2007).

It does not take much of a leap to imagine how this plays out in today’s society. A man who becomes accustomed to arguments with his wife at the end of each work day eventually comes home fighting without additional provocation. The person who puts down every aspect of others’ behavior and appearance may genuinely make him/herself feel more powerful by an aggression-related release of neurochemicals. The high school student who experiences an ongoing dopamine and norepinephrine rush from abusive peers may well be chemically “triggered” to predatory, vindictive behavior after a time — and feel justified in doing so.

Fortunately, this same biological components that spark aggression help us understand how to decrease such behavior. Couppis and Kennedy (2008) found that by turning off the dopamine receptors in mice, they decreased attacking and biting behaviors in mice. Non-double-blind research hinted that clozapine (a dopamine antagonist) might be able to almost eliminate aggression; schizophrenic patients treated for 47 weeks showed a decrease of aggressiveness from 31.4% to 1.1% of the population without sedative or antipsychotic effect. Later formal research confirmed this possibility; clozapine’s moderation of aggression stood even in relation to the drug’s effect on other psychiatric symptoms (Siegel, Bhatt, Bhatt, & Zalcman, 2007).

There’s a reason aggression commonly exists in the animal kingdom; it serves a purpose when it is used judiciously for protection and the gathering of resources. But, society has changed with blinding rapidity over the past several hundred years compared to the preceding several billion, and the same inclinations toward aggression that were once beneficial are now often problematic. Because of the slow nature of evolution, behaviors such as aggression often endure long after a time when their presence has provided a definite advantage (Weiten, 2008). With an understanding aggression’s biological roots, we can learn to wield it as a tool for building society rather than as a weapon for tearing it down.

References

Archer, J., & Côté, S. (2005). Sex differences in aggressive behavior: A developmental and evolutionary perspective. In R. E. Tremblay, W. Hartup, & J. Archer (Ed.), Developmental origins of aggression (pp. 425-445). New York: Guilford Publications.

Beaver, K. M., DeLisi, M., Vaughn, M. G., & Barnes, J. C. (in press). Monoamine oxidase A genotype is associated with gang membership and weapon use. Comprehensive Psychiatry (2009). Retrieved June 10, 2009, from Science Direct database, doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2009.03.010.

Couppis, M., & Kennedy, C. (2008). The rewarding effect of aggression is reduced by nucleus accumbens dopamine receptor antagonism in mice. Psychopharmacology, 197(3), 449-456. Retrieved June 6, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Fresan, A., Camarena, B., Apiquian, R., Aguilar, A., Urraca, N., & Nicolini, H. (2007). Association study of MAO-A and DRD4 genes in schizophrenic patients with aggressive behavior. Neuropsychobiology, 55(3/4), 171-175. Retrieved June 6, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Kessler, T., & Cohrs, J. (2008). The evolution of authoritarian processes: Fostering cooperation in large-scale groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12(1), 73-84. Retrieved June 6, 2009, from PsycARTICLES database.

Siegel, A., Bhatt, S., Bhatt, R., & Zalcman, S. (2007). The neurobiological bases for development of pharmacological treatments of aggressive disorders. Current Neuropharmacology, 5(2), 135-147. Retrieved June6, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

van Erp, A., & Miczek, K. (2007). Increased accumbal dopamine during daily alcohol consumption and subsequent aggressive behavior in rats. Psychopharmacology, 191(3), 679-688. Retrieved June 6, 2009, Academic Search Premier database.

Weiten, W. (2008). Psychology: Themes and variations. Briefer version. (7th ed.). Belmont, California: Thomson Higher Education.

Here’s the second of my first week’s postings for the re-do of PSYC6211. I like this post, and find myself annoyed that his response was “Not bad.” and to ding me for use of dictionary.com as “not fitting of graduate level work.” I replied with additional information that dictionary.com is actually the online version of the Random House Unabridged dictionary (2006), and asked if that is still true. Retyping/sourcing the Oxford English Dictionary that’s on my desk will be annoying, but hell, I’ll do it. If he replies soon enough, maybe I’ll actually rewrite this post doing so.

Still, since I pride myself in using at least 3 REAL sources for any given post (anything from the news, magazines, and the like is extra, IMO), I’m feeling a bit grumbly about this. I know that having a prof who’s persnickety about sources and formatting will only make me a better student/researcher/writer, but it still rubs me the wrong way in this case.

Besides that, I think I’m a bit paranoid that he’s expecting negative things from me because in my intro post, I put it out there honestly that I’m retaking this class — and why. Show, don’t tell. Show, don’t tell. Repeat to self. My job is to kick ass so he has no choice but to give me an ‘A’ in the class, not to worry about whether the man LIKES me or not. Repeat to self.

~~~~~~~~

Don’t believe everything you think.

Dictionary.com gives ten separate definitions for the word “critical.” Two introduce the idea of severe, negative feedback. Three involve medicine and natural sciences. Two relate to analysis of literature and the arts. The remaining definitions pertain to our work here and involve the application of judgment to information and the importance of the subject being judged (‘Critical,’ n.d.). As Ruscio (2006) states, “critical thinking does not imply criticism, nor does it lead to the rejection of reasonable beliefs by being overly critical” (p.3). In other words, critical thinking involves systematic open-mindedness blended with a merciless culling of ideas not worth keeping, even if the discarded ideas are those once cherished. A critical thinker must always question his or her own assumptions and resist the temptation to selectively view only the empirical evidence that supports an established idea.

comic: xkcd

A look at recent headlines is a good reminder of the importance of critical thinking, not only in the study of psychology, but also in our everyday lives. The idea of potentially contracting the flu terrifies some, yet others fear influenza vaccinations even more than the illness itself. And, according to Age of Autism, there is reason to fear this shot; flu vaccinations triple child hospitalizations (Heckenlively, 2009)! But wait, a look at less alarmist, more reasoned reporting gives a caveat: this finding is true for a select population only (children with asthma), and even then, the director of asthma research at a major children’s hospital warns caution when interpreting this study’s findings (Gardner, 2009). The author of the study herself states clearly that her findings do not implicate vaccinations as the cause of hospital stays children, but merely indicate directions for future research (American Thoracic Society, 2009).

Without a questioning attitude and the interest (and will) to dig farther, a parent may read the first article’s “proof” of flu vaccine danger and make an immediate decision to shield children from this so-called harm. With a more critical approach, this same parent discovers one additional piece of information to include with the knowledge that vaccinations have demonstrated as extremely safe in infants and toddlers (Hambridge, et al., 2006) and that vaccinating daycare-aged children is protective of the entire household (Hurwitz, et al., 2000). Only by applying critical thinking, can a parent — or a psychological researcher, for that matter — make an informed choice.

References:

American Thoracic Society (2009). News release: Flu shot not effective in preventing flu-related hospitalizations in asthmatic children. Retrieved June 4, 2009, from http://www.thoracic.org/sections/publications/press-releases/conference/articles/2009/abstracts-and-press-releases/joshi.pdf

critical. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved June 04, 2009, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.classic.reference.com/browse/critical

Gardner, A. (2009). Hospitalization rates higher in kids who get flu shots. MedicineNet.com. Retrieved June 4, 2009, from http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=100522

Hambidge, S. J., et al. (2006). Safety of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine in children 6 to 23 months old. JAMA, 296(16) 1990-1997. Retrieved June 4, 2009, from JAMA database.

Heckenlively, K. (2009). Flu vaccine triples child hospitalizations, but won’t turn them into horned, hairy apes, say experts! Age of Autism. Retrieved June 4, 2009, from http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/05/flu-vaccine-triples-child-hospitalizations-but-wont-turn-them-into-horned-hairy-apes-say-experts.html

Hurwitz, E. S. et al. (2000). Effectiveness of influenza vaccination of day care children in reducing influenza-related morbidity among household contacts. JAMA, 284(13), 1677-1682. Retrieved June 04, 2009 from JAMA database.

Munroe, R. (2009). Swine flu. xkcd – a webcomic. Retrieved June 4, 2009, from http://xkcd.com/574/

Ruscio, J. (2006). Critical thinking in psychology: Separating sense from nonsense (Second Ed.). Belmont, California: Wadsworth , Cengage Learning.

Wow. I haven’t had much time for blog-reading lately, and today gifted myself a few minutes to read. Over at Hands Full of Rocks, Hedra describes the difference between love and adoration — specifically where our children are concerned. I would certainly argue that the distinction applies to all relationships.

Here’s a smidge:

Love, in my opinin, is better than adoration. Love is an equal-to-equal proposition. It has the opportunity for respect instead of worship. One can’t negotiate with the being one worships – they always have the upper hand, always have the power position, always must win, simply because they are more worthy than we.

Love puts us eye to eye with our kids. It says ‘I’m worthy, and you are worthy, so let’s work on getting us both what we each need.’ Love lets us embrace the rotten miserable awful parts of our child’s behavior and character, instead of rejecting them. When we embrace the things we dislike about our child, then we can work with those issues as whole parts of our whole child, rather than trying to cut off, squash, or negate the things we wish they didn’t have as aspects of personality or skill. The same is true of ourselves – I’m better at working on an issue in myself if I embrace it first, recognize it as ‘of me’.

Very true — I can certainly work on my own issues more if I accept them first.

While love is more messy, it’s also much more powerful and real. From the receiving end, I can tell that Maya, at least, craves the love, even as much as she enjoys the adoration. As Gavin continues to come into his own personhood, I hope I remember to frequently step back from adoring him so that I can SEE him.

Read the whole thing. Hedra’s description of watching her son morph from destructo to deconstructionist before her eyes is a powerful example of what we can see if we stop assuming we know who people are.

Willful Suspension of Belief
Religious prejudice from the perspective of social psychology

Prepared for:
PSYC 6211
Week 8 Application

The morning of January 20, 2009, I stood on the lawn of the Mall with nearly 2 million other spectators to witness Barack Obama’s inauguration as the President of the United States. Nearness to people from varied backgrounds inevitably led to interesting conversations — about social issues, the economy, and finally religion. During the inaugural address, I heard this: “For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers” (Obama, 2009, ¶47). My new acquaintances exclaimed, “hey, that’s you!” on the new President’s mention of nonbelievers. I was simply glad to be explicitly included in a venue that would typically deny (at best ignore) my existence.

photo by Daniel Marsula/Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Not everyone experienced my reaction. One religious leader accused President Obama of trying to redefine who we are as a nation. In his words, we are “distinctly Christian” (Hennenberger, 2009, ¶5). In reality, the existence of “In God We Trust” on our currency and “under God” in our pledge has a short history – since the Eisenhower administration, when they were added (in part) as a means of distinguishing Americans from ‘godless Communists’ (Bates, 2004). According to research from the University of Minnesota, “atheists are the most distrusted and disliked minority group in the country” (Niose, 2008, p.17). In a recent Gallup poll, atheists were the minority that Americans were least likely to consider when voting for a President of the United States (45%), well below women (88%), Mormons (72%), and even homosexuals (55%) (Jones, 2007). At prominent levels, this bias continues. President Eisenhower insisted that government makes no sense without deeply-held religious beliefs (‘Religion,’ 2006). While presidential candidate Romney declared, “a person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith” (Allen, 2007, ¶11), he prefaced that by statements that our constitution was written for religious people and that religion is necessary for freedom’s existence (Allen, 2007).

Why are nonbelievers distrusted? Understanding what drives people to accept and like others helps provide perspective.

Schemas/Stereotypes.
Many people have a preconceived notion of what non-believing people look like and behave. While schemas and stereotypes facilitate understanding a world that would otherwise seem too complex, they also can lead people to erroneous judgment (Weiten, 2007). For instance, some hold the idea that without belief in God, atheists are necessarily immoral people (Silverman, 2009).

Illusory Correlation
According to Weiten (2007), people often overestimate how frequently they see expected traits portrayed by stereotyped groups. This leads to confirmation bias, believing one’s own hypothesis based on subjective (albeit, inaccurate) experience. Someone who views Richard Dawkins spewing dozens of negative adjectives about their God may feel that their existing idea of nonbelievers (“atheists are angry and rude”) has been confirmed. They are less likely to remember (or even know) the many times throughout their life that a nonbeliever has held open a door, coached little league, or let them pass in traffic.

Ingroup/Outgroup
By sheer number —around 10% of the American population (‘U.S. Religious,’ 2008) — nonbelievers are more often than not part of an outgroup. During most of human history, sticking close to members of one’s own group has helped to ensure survival. Because of this history, we are instinctively drawn to those who are like us (ingroup). We tend to avoid those who are markedly different from us – or perceived as such (Weiten, 2007).

Attribution Assumptions
When assigning reasoning behind behavior, humans tend to be more forgiving of themselves and of people who are recognized as being “like them.” Alternately, negative actions by an unknown person (or member of an outgroup) are typically labeled as internally motivated. The SUV with a fish on it ran a red light? He must be in a hurry (external attribution). The minivan with the Flying Spaghetti Monster? She’s recklessly disrespectful of the law (internal attribution) (Weiten, 2007). To be fair, I have to admit my own bias here; I might assign the label “hypocrite” to the fish-wearing SUV that cuts me off in traffic!

Similarity of Perceived Experience
We are drawn to those who are like us; our friends and intimates are most often people from similar backgrounds, with similar interests (Weiten, 2007). That said, even more important is the perception of shared experience. Research has demonstrated people prefer objectively dissimilar people who are perceived to have the same subjective experiences as them, even beyond their preference for those who are like them. That is to say, I may come from a background much like Person A, while Person B is quite different. But, because Persons A and B share a similar use of Sunday mornings (church attendance), Person A will likely have a more positive mental image of Person B than of me (Pinel, et al., 2006).

Attitude
Society’s attitude toward atheists has three main components: cognitive, affective, and behavioral. It is possible to cognitively hold a positive attitude toward a nonbeliever (“I recognize the right of this person to believe what they believe.”) while still having negative affective (“Atheists scare and disgust me.”) and behavioral (“I will not hire anyone who is a nonbeliever.”) components (Weiten, 2007). The affective – or emotional – portion of attitude has been shown to be more predictive of behavior than intellectual attitudes (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007).

From a review of social psychological principles, it is clear why nonbelievers are still considered a pariah by many, and why the idea of electing an atheist President seems far-fetched. Fortunately, social psychology also indicates what can change nonbelievers’ status. Obama’s “shout-out” in his inaugural address is a powerful start. When a respected person models the behavior of acknowledging nonbelievers, viewers are conditioned to (consciously or otherwise) become more accepting (Weiten, 2007). In my daily life, I am aware of how my own positive interactions can spark cognitive dissonance in people who may otherwise expect nonbelievers to be despicable people. I have watched as my own parents have struggled with the tension between the competing ideas of “Atheists are evil” and “Our daughter is a good person and mother.” Education and awareness are also important. Affective attitudes more strongly influence current attitudes, but intellectually chosen changes of attitude (central) are more robust and long-lasting than emotionally-driven changes (peripheral) (Weiten, 2007).

This does not mean that addressing the affective component of attitudes is unimportant. To the contrary, a high level of perceived warmth of a person or group increases the likelihood that others will help and protect them and decreases how likely others are to actively hurt them (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007). Because atheists are often thought of as cold and impersonal, this is an opportunity for change. One blogger I know labeled himself as the “Friendly Atheist.” The title of his blog alone give some visiting believers a pause to consider how they treat him. Nel Noddings (2008) cites author E. O. Wilson as another example of how nonbelievers can project warmth. “It is clear that Wilson shares with Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens a skepticism toward religious belief. But he wants to communicate and to solicit cooperation on a project of vital interest to humanity” (p.373). By becoming more accessible and approachable, atheists become more sympathetic characters.

In 1987, then-Vice President Bush said to a reporter, “I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God” (O’Hair, unknown, ¶2; Sherman, 2007). At this year’s national prayer breakfast, President Obama twice mentioned the existence of non-believing citizens and acknowledged their right to abstain from religion (‘Godless,’ 2009). However one describes those for whom faith is not a part of their lives — agnostic, atheist, secularist, nontheist, freethinker, humanist, or any number of other monikers —society is beginning to change so that prejudice toward them is less acceptable. I hold out for the time we can honestly say we live in a post-theological (Niose, 2008) world.

References

Allen, M. (2007). “Romney: Freedom requires religion.” Politico, December 7, 2007. Retrieved February 5, 2009, from http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7238.html

Bates, S. (2004). “Godless communism” and its legacies. Society, March/April 2004. Retrieved January 26, 2009 from Academic Search Premier.

Cuddy, A.J.C., Fiske, S.T., Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2007, Vol. 92, No. 4, 631-648. Retrieved January 26, 2009 from Academic Search Premier.

‘Godless watch, continued,’ 2009. Democracy in America blog. The Economist. Retrieved February 5, 2009, from http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/02/
godless_watch_continued.cfm

Hennenberger, M. (2009). Obama’s nonbeliever nod unsettles some. AOL News. Retrieved January 26, 2009 from http://news.aol.com/main/obama-presidency/article/obamas-nonbeliever-nod-during/316339

Jones, J. (2007). Some Americans reluctant to vote for Mormon, 72-year-old presidential candidates. Gallup News Service. Retrieved January 26, 2009 from http://www.gallup.com/poll/26611/
Some-Americans-Reluctant-Vote-Mormon-72YearOld-Presidential-Candidates.aspx

Niose, D. (2008). The post-theological umbrella. Humanist, January-February 2008. Retrieved January 26, 2009 from Academic Search Premier.

Noddings, N. (2008). The new outspoken atheism and education. Harvard Educational Review; Summer 2008; 78, 2; Research Library p. 369. Retrieved January 26, 2009 from ProQuest Online.

Obama, B. H. (2009). Inaugural address. Retrieved January 26, 2009 from http://www.nytimes.com/
2009/01/20/us/politics/20text-obama.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

O’Hair, M. (unknown). The history of the issue. Positive Atheism. Retrieved February 6, 2009, from http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm

Pinel, E.C., Long, A.E., Landau, M.J., Alexander, K., Pyszczynski, T. (2006). Seeing I to I: A pathway to interpersonal connectedness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2006, Vol.90, No. 2, 243-257. Retrieved January 26, 2009 from Academic Search Premier.

‘Religious belief quotes’ (2006). Retrieved February 5, 2009, from http://thinkexist.com/
quotes/with/keyword/religious_belief/

Ruscio, J. (2006). Critical Thinking in Psychology: Separating Sense from Nonsense (Second Ed.). Belmont, California: Wadsworth , Cengage Learning.

Sherman, R. (2007). Documents at Bush presidential library prove VP Bush questioned citizenship and patriotism of atheists. Retrieved February 6, 2009, from http://www.robsherman.com/
advocacy/060401a.htm

Silverman, D. (2009). Top ten atheist myths. American Atheists. Retrieved February 6, 2009, from http://www.atheists.org/Top_Ten_Atheist_Myths

Weiten, W. (2008) Psychology: Themes and variations. Briefer version. (7th ed.). Belmont, California: Thomson Higher Education.

U.S. Religious Landscape Survey (2008). The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Retrieved December 17, 2008, from http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

(ring)
Hey, how are you?
Eh, we’re all sick, mom. Maya had it, then I got it Friday, and it’s almost gone. Now it’s Gavin’s turn.
So, I’ve got an off-the-wall-question for you. How old was I when I started taking ballet?
Oh, I think you were about four. It was after we moved to Corpus Christi.

I don’t WANT to go to ballet!
You can’t just quit whenever you decide you don’t like something.
But I don’t LIIIIIKE it!
Life is full of things you won’t like.

How long did I take lessons?
Oh, a year at least.
And whose idea was it for me to take lessons?
It was my idea.

Please, don’t make me go. I don’t like the game running around playing like squirrels hiding their nuts in the Fall. It’s stupid.
Sigh. You really shouldn’t just be a quitter like that, but okay.

And when we took piano lessons, whose idea was that?
I think that was my idea too — at least for the first year. After that, it was up to you guys.
Okay, thanks — I’m at Maya’s school now; gotta run.

The answer was as simple as a phone call.

Ballet, piano lessons (which I took for several years before leaving), numerous activities that I *didn’t* pursue because of the attitude of, “oh, you’d just quit them anyway.” Other things I dabbled in and quit later (despite my insistence that I’d continue): skydiving, choral music after college. Things that I continued out of sheer love of it: music, extracurricular reading for personality and psychology. Devotion toward my kids and dedication to helping them grow up emotionally healthy.

After that first experience with accepting the label of “someone who quits things,” everything I’ve done has been colored by the idea that I simply can’t — or even worse, can but *won’t* — follow through. I strained against this identity in my first two major relationships, which lasted long past their consume-by date, despite the stench (I’m looking at you, JD). In reaction, most of my relationships since then have seen me as the one who’s never been willing to commit. Even as a married gal, have my emotions really ever been “all in?” To my shame, probably not.

My brother, by contrast, finished *everything.* In a household full of Judger-types, this was a virtue. I freely admit that I enjoy the initiation of a project more than the completion of it (although hitting “submit” on an assignment does feel really damned good). If you take a look at the piles of research and outline notes I have for each and every late assignment that is stressing me out, that becomes blindingly obvious. There is a place for completion drive.

But what if when I was a child it was actually *I* who did the right thing? What if my brother played soccer, not because he liked it, but because he was expected to not QUIT? What if it was okay for me to move on from activities I disliked after giving them a fair trial?

I’ll never know what the reality was. Memories are notoriously inaccurate, and mine is no exception. But, even the idea that maybe — just maybe — things weren’t exactly as I thought gives me a freedom. I have the freedom to do what makes sense to me, without regard (fear, even) of a label.

Perspective is good. Now pardon me while I complete some work. You see, despite what I was told at the age of 5, I’m not a quitter.

****Edited to add:****

I should mention — this does *not* mean that I am staying in at Walden after this quarter. What it does do is give me some psychological space in which to burn through the assignments for which I’ve had massive mental blocks (even when I HAVE had time free from baby-love). It also means that I know I’ll return. And I can do so without feeling haunted by this idea that I’m destined to fail or otherwise fall flat on my face.