I used to spend lots of energy creating my own WP look/feel with others’ templates as a starting point. Likely don’t have the time/energy to do that now. This particular template, I downloaded months ago, and it was new to me then — since, I’ve seen variations of it all over. That means I need something different, right?

Anyone have suggestions for templates they’ve seen/loved?

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.

This one was a lot of fun to write. Pity I turned it in a few hours late, but I’m learning to deal with the uncertainties of mixing family and school. Once Mike is no longer working insane hours/days, I think (hope!) I should keep up better.

Anyway, this was one of those papers that I had a night to sleep on the topic (had already pulled/read most of my content), and when I sat down at the computer, it poured out in short timeframe.

Written for Psyc6211, July 3, 2009

Assignment:
Consider the following scenario: A recent article was published in a popular magazine that presented information about medical treatments that were “out of the ordinary.” For example, the article discusses many alternative “cures” to some of the most studied diseases. One segment of the article discussed how you can cure an enlarged prostate with a popular method of reducing wrinkles. While this article did provide some scientifically-based research, the findings were largely taken out of context or misrepresented in some way.

Using the critical thinking skills learned thus far in the course and with the scenario’s example article in mind, find an example of a current article or media claim that draws incorrect conclusions from its findings.

With these thoughts in mind:
Post by a brief summary of the article you located and the errors that the author makes in drawing conclusions about the findings. Then explain how the author can make the article better, using the critical thinking skills that you’ve learned to date.

Facebook! Can kill you!

Facebook: purveyors of DEATH. Or not.

The article that I found — a press release, actually — promised to give life-altering information about two very timely topics: social networking sites and the current recession. The release, “Social networks could seriously damage your health — particularly during a recession” (2009), applies to me, as both a job seeker (I hope to return to work fulltime in September) and as a user of Facebook. The release author suggests that those out of work may eschew face-to-face contact in favor of less expensive time online. The potential harm spelled out in the release is no laughing matter: “our devotion to social networks such as Facebook could alter the way genes work, upset immune responses, hormone levels, and the function of arteries, and influence mental performance” (‘Social networks,’ 2009, ¶3). Diving into the source article in the British journal Biology makes the consequences of Facebook use even more dire. The article’s author, Sigman (2009), suggests that social networking site usage may also lead to isolation, cancer, infectious disease, cardiovascular disease, sleeplessness, inflammation, stroke, memory loss, and even premature death.

In light of recent New York Times pieces I’ve read about the value of social networks during a job search (Villano, 2009)(Weed, 2009), this article was a bit disheartening. You mean, to find a job, I need to use social networks, but by doing so, I might harm myself? What is a girl to do? A girl is to do her homework, that’s what a girl is to do. It turns out, all fear-mongering aside, I have no reason to fear. The research to which Sigman’s article refers not to social network usage — or even general electronic media usage, for that matter — but, rather to the primary indicators, loneliness and isolation. Social isolation, and the misery that it brings to man, is indeed implicated in all of these conditions.

Is it appropriate to blame social networks for our increased isolation? Do people eschew face-to-face contact in favor of face-to-screen time with online-only contacts? Perhaps some do. Sigman’s reference for this, however (one I had to dig to find, as it was not included in the article reference list), was an author’s personal experience — in an editorial, not even a peer-reviewed article (Abbasi, 2008). This is hardly something backed by science. If I add my personal experience with social networks to the mix — experience equally valid to one doctor’s annecdote — I find that online networks not only improve my social contacts, but also enhance my real-life connections. I may, for instance, learn more about another (local) mom’s day-to-day life, improving our ability to converse when we next meet again at a toddler play date. I also can discover more about my local connections’ personalities, assisting me in deciding with whom to spend my limited budget for face-to-face time. Social networking sites lessen, not increase, my sense of isolation.

All in all, the AIM press release and the article it references do discuss a legitimate issue; reduced social contacts are repeatedly demonstrated to have a negative effect on health. That said, placing blame on social networking sites such as Facebook is not supported by the research, and appears to be a cheap attempt at joining two “hot” news items (recession, increased social networking use) for increased consulting opportunity for AIM and readership for Sigman.

What both the release and the article neglect to discuss is the correlation/causation link between electronic media usage and loneliness. Do we give up our non-virtual social networks because of electronic media? Or, what I consider more likely, do we use online contacts as a way to build up our social lives that have been obliterated by changes in society’s general? These questions, in my opinion, would make a much more interesting — and helpful — study. It’s possible that many people use online networks as a way to mitigate otherwise unavoidable isolation.

References

Abbasi, K. (2008). MMR and the value of word of mouth in social networks [Editorial]. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 101, 215-216. Retrieved July 3, 2009, from http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/reprint/101/5/215

Sigman, A. (2009, February). Well connected? The biological implications of ’social networking’. Biologist, 56(1), 14-20. Retrieved July 2, 2009, from http://azureim.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/sigmanbiologist2009.pdf

Social networks could seriously damage your health — particularly during a recession. (2009, March 20). PRWeb. Retrieved July 2, 2009, from http://www.prweb.com/releases/2009/03/prweb2248584.htm

Villano, M. (2009, May 2). Job-search networks, in all shapes and sizes. New York Times, 2009, March 20 [Electronic edition]. Retrieved July 3, 2009, from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/jobs/03networks.html

Weed, J. (2009, May 30). Finding new employees, via social networks. New York Times, 2009, May 30 [Electronic edition]. Retrieved July 3, 2009, from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/jobs/31recruit.html

Written for PSYC6211, June 25, 2009

*****

Culture & Media Institute author, ignoring evidence, makes faulty comparisons and contorts ‘Today Show’ guest’s remarks to further her agenda.

*****

On a recent segment of the Today Show, Dr. Robi Ludwig discussed new (and potentially surprising) information about marriage and divorce with Al Roker. According to Ludwig, new data shows that in some cases, specifically those where the ongoing home environment is violent, combative, and conflict-ridden, children experience detrimental effects. Ludwig challenged the conventional wisdom that an intact family is always best and stated that these effects can be mitigated by divorce *if* the parents are able to work together in a cooperative manner to co-parent. Ludwig emphasized that she was not referring to disagreements (and even stated that children’s ability to understand that love and disagreement can coexist is healthy), but rather to cases where stress ruled the roost (‘Is staying together good for the kids?,’ 2009).

From her description in nearly-identical articles for NewsBusters and the Culture and Media Institute (CMI), Catherine Maggio (2009) seems to have viewed a quite different home and parenting segment. Maggio suggests that Ludwig acted as a proponent — an apologist, even — of divorce, and accuses Ludwig of ignoring the dire consequences of divorce that children suffer (Maggio, 2009)(Maggio, 2009). Maggio’s insistence that intact marriage is always the best option is problematic, filled with fallacy and bias.

Confirmation bias (Ruscio, 2006)
The articles’ author expected a certain “liberal bias” from Dr. Ludwig’s presentation, and, as a result, found it. It is *obvious* to Maggio that, while Ludwig speaks of holding children’s best interests at heart, that rather she is a selfish liberal who thinks that if marriage is inconvenient in the least, one should jump to divorce. The possibility that data might support divorce in some cases is inconceivable.

3rd variables (Stanovich, 2007)
In her insistence that in intact marriage is always a better option than divorce, Maggio ignores the possibility that other factors come into play, and that perhaps divorce isn’t the causal variable for her data. Not surprisingly, many of the same effects of divorce are also prevalent in children from conflict-ridden homes. Perhaps, for instance, the conflict and accompanying stress, rather than divorce itself, actually cause health issues.

Self-selection, lack of study design (Stanovich, 2007)
Any analysis of divorce and home conflict is, by nature, not going to include a double-blind, randomly-assigned study design. (Wouldn’t you love to be the kid who gets assigned to the parents who constantly call each other nasty names?) Because of this, it is not possible to truly control for which effects are from divorce, and which are from other, perhaps only tangentially related, causes. In other words, even if an analyst is aware of possible alternate causes of issues, he or she cannot eliminate them entirely and give a definitive answer on causation.

Cherry-picked, self-serving references (Ruscio, 2006)
In the CMI version of her article, Maggio provides links to evidence that divorce is always, without exception, a tragedy for the children involved. A glance at these links shows, in one instance, mainstream media articles, cherry-picked statements from research which showed that a combative divorce can cause major issues. A second link brings the reader to a sensationalistic roundup of divorce-related data (all at least 15 years old) presented by, surprise, an alarmist with a stake in the belief that divorce is the moral equivalent of devil worship.

Beyond the article author herself, the site and its readers also bump into deception and bias. NewsBusters is a political and social action group committed to the documentation of “liberal media bias” (‘About NewsBusters.org, n.d.), and the promotion of the right’s perspective on what defines appropriate culture and morality. It is not a journalistic outlet. Yet, the NewsBusters site prominently features the AP logo next to a link to an actual Associated Press article, giving the deceptive impression that NB is a legitimate news source.

The NewsBusters site allows reader comments, and even the first two comments to this article provide a (sadly, representative) glimpse into the bias that feeds the site readers’ worldviews. The first commenter launches an ad-hominem attack on Dr. Ludwig:

Not sure of how much of an “expert” she is. Her undergrad work was in Media Studies and she earned a Masters in Social Work. Don’t consider her more than an apologist for divorce.

If this contributor discovered these portions of Ludwig’s background, s/he also likely chose to ignore her more recent bona fides: a post-masters certificate in clinical work and PsyD from Southern California University for Professional Studies (‘Dr. Robi Ludwig – Bio,’ n.d.).

Another commenter exposes his or her own bias against attractive blonde women:

This “woman” is a laughable blond ditz who clearly has no inkling of the devastation divorce causes in a child’s mind and life.

I’m uncertain how the hair color, questionable (or not?) gender, and appearance of the psychologist on the ‘Today Show’ apply in relation to empirical data, but this reader seems to assume 1) that the good doctor is an idiot and 2) that she has an agenda that involves intentionally ruining children’s lives.

As much as the shocked and offended story author and outraged commenters may not like to hear it, Dr. Ludwig’s comments derived from actual empirical data, not from some left-wing-inspired wish for more households to break into divorce. The studies to which Dr. Ludwig referred were likely the series of analyses in the February 2009 issue of “Marriage and Family Review” (currently only available in abstract form, except to subscribers). In an analysis of data from the NLSY97 cohort, a longitudinal study of approximately 9,000 youths, researchers learned that high-conflict marriages correlate with poor mental and physical health(Hair, et al., 2009), substance abuse(Hair, et al.), and risky sexual behavior (Kaye, et al., 2009). While single-parent homes showed a lower rate of high school graduation than even high-conflict two-parent homes, children from high-conflict two-parent homes demonstrated a markedly lower rate of post-secondary education among those who did graduate (Orthner, et al., 2009).

When it comes down to it, both the left (the psychologist talk show guest) and the right (the ‘cultural values’ organization author) agree that ensuring the best possible outcome for kids is important. The difference that I see is that on the left, the “best outcome” is a moving target informed by each particular family’s circumstance and dynamic. On the right, the starting assumption is that an intact marriage is essential to a good outcome. From there, any information about positive effects of divorce *for some children* is irrelevant. The question instead is, “how can we ensure parents remain married?”

References

About NewsBusters.org (n.d.). NewsBusters. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from http://newsbusters.org/about

About the Culture and Media Institute (n.d.). Culture and Media Institute. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/about/about.aspx

Dr. Robi Ludwig – Bio (n.d.). Dr. Robi Ludwig. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from http://www.drrobiludwig.com/bio.htm

Hair, E. C., Anderson Moore, K., Hadley, A. M., Kaye, K., Day, R. D., & Orthner, D. K. (2009). Parent marital quality and the parent-adolescent relationship: Effects on adolescent and young adult health outcomes [Abstract]. Marriage & Family Review, 45(2/3), 218-248. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from SocINDEX database.

Is staying together good for the kids? (2009). Today Show [Video]. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/31385534#31385534

Kaye, K., Moore, K. A., Hair, E. C., Hadley, A. M., Day, R. D., & Orthner, D. K. (2009). Parent marital quality and the parent-adolescent relationship: Effects on sexual activity among adolescents and youth [Abstract]. Marriage & Family Review, 45(2/3), 270-288. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from SocINDEX database.

Maggio, C. (2009). Today Show: Don’t stay together for the kids. NewsBusters. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from http://newsbusters.org/blogs/catherine-maggio/2009/06/17/today-show-don-t-stay-together-kids

Maggio, C. (2009). ‘Today Show’: Don’t stay together for the kids: NBC guest, ignoring evidence, suggests divorce is sometimes better for children. Culture and Media Institute. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from http://www.cultureandmedia.com/articles/2009/20090617080839.aspx

Orthner, D. K., Jones-Sanpei, H., Hair, E. C., Moore, K. A., Day, R. D., & Kaye, K. (2009). Marital and parent relationship quality and educational outcomes for youth [Abstract]. Marriage & Family Review, 45(2/3), 249-269. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from SocINDEX database.

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

Stanovich, K.E. (2007). How to think straight about psychology (Eighth Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon/Pearson Education, Inc.

Okay, I WAS being paranoid about this professor. What I discovered yesterday, in reading his feedback to other students, is that Dr. G is much, much more formal not only about formatting, but also about references. While I used peer-reviewed resources (as I said, always at LEAST 3), I also use the news to provide context — especially when discussing contemporary issues.

Anyway:

Excellent work, Allison. I just need to get you away from the public domain websites and into the peer-reviewed literature more and you will go from good to great…. You are setting the bar high for others in this class!

64/64 A

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.

(Written for PSYC6211, Dr. Geyer, June 3, 2009)

Wilhelm Wundt, who founded the first laboratory for psychological research in 1879, is often described as the ‘founder of psychology’ (Weiten, 2008). While it is true that Wundt advocated an empirical approach toward research, not unlike that found in the physical sciences (Weiten), Wundt actually was skeptical of the ability of the scientific method to address higher mental processes and restricted much of his research accordingly (Blumenthal, 1975). Regardless of Wundt’s intentions, psychology has become well established with a scientific orientation and respect for replicable research in part due to his insistence on strict procedure.

Living in a science lab town, I often encounter ‘true’ scientists who would turn their noses (or perhaps their brains) up at the idea of any social science actually being a true science. The field of psychology is not without its quirks and quacks, but those practicing theoretically have good intentions. As Stanovich (2007) describes, “Psychology is different from other behavioral fields in that it attempts to give the public two guarantees. One is that the conclusions about behavior that it produces derive from scientific evidence. The second is that practical applications have been derived from and tested by scientific methods” (p.6). We rely on critical thinking, facts, and a firm grasp on reality.

image by Robert Venables for TIME

Contrast this with the explosive phenomenon that is the self-help book industry. While book sales in general declined, self-help book sales grew at a staggering pace, quadrupling between 1998 and 2008 (Carpenter, 2008). Without the research to back them up, many self-help authors claim to solve readers’ problems with simplistic, and sometimes, even harmful advice (Wright & Cummings, 2005). According to Wendy Kaminer, a critic of the self-help movement, “self-help books reflect whatever the prevalent ethic of the culture is” (Carpenter, 2008, ‘Self-help books reflect culture,’ ¶1). Any one paying attention will recognize that it is uncommon for scientific realities and the cultural ethos to align. With the past year’s economic downturn, the self-help genre has continued its growth (Bond, 2009), offering the alluring promise that one’s circumstances can improve in three easy steps.

The good news is that since Seligman’s election as President of the APA in 1997 (Weiten, 2008), the new and growing field of positive psychology increasingly steps in to fill some of those self-help shelves at your local Border’s or Barnes & Noble with advice based in empirical evidence. Do you want to be happy? Martin Seligman (2002) gives you ideas about how you can choose to reframe your life by shifting your attention. Rather than focusing on removing illness, positive psychology emphasizes the habits, behaviors, and character traits that can create wellness. Some in our field would criticize this new discipline, painting it as hopelessly ‘Pollyanna’ in its orientation (Gable & Haidt, 2005), but I would argue that the demand for a positive message is there. If psychological researchers will not present information about how to improve oneself, many pretenders are ready to fill that gap with pseudoscience — watch any given episode of Oprah, and The Secret will be obvious.

References

Blumenthal, A. (1975, November). A reappraisal of Wilhelm Wundt. American Psychologist, 30(11), 1081-1088. Retrieved June 4, 2009 from PsycARTICLES.

Bond, G. (2009). Bailouts of the self-help kind: Self-help books in a down economy. Publishers weekly, April 6, 2009. Retrieved June 2, 2009 from http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6649176.html

Carpenter, C. (2008). Self-help books get the ‘tough love’ treatment. The Christian Science Monitor. February 7, 2008. Retrieved June 2, 2009 from http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0207/p17s02-lign.html

Gable, S. L., & Haidt, J. (2005). What (and why?) is positive psychology? Review of general psychology, 2005, Vol. 9, No. 2, 103-110. Retrieved June 1, 2009 from PsycARTICLES.

Seligman, M. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. New York: Free Press/Simon & Schuster

Stanovich, K.E. (2007). How to think straight about psychology (Eighth Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon/Pearson Education, Inc.

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

Wright, R. H., & Cummings, N. A. (2005). Destructive trends in mental health: The well-intentioned path to harm. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.