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.

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.

Remember all that angst I ran into several months ago regarding grad school and my ability to get things done? Well, it got the best of me. I ended the term with a more-than-100% average on 65ish% of the coursework required to complete PSYC 6211 — and an “I” designation so I could finish up the work.

Life got in the way. Gavin got sick (and again and again — what’s with this kid?). I had minor surgery (elective; I’m fine). I was diagnosed with a crazy load of food sensitivities and am re-learning how to feed myself. I discovered that by avoiding said allergens, I’m less moody, more energetic, and more focused. And, I neglected to read what Walden presented in clear text: that I had exactly 60 days in which to complete my unfinished work. Just as I was ready to get those final projects done, I stumbled upon this information (okay, fine — I realized I’d been assigned an F — THEN, I found it). Oh no, what now?

Well, I can retake the class. It’s an expensive mistake ($1800 for 5 quarter hours), but it’s one I made, and it’s one that I’ll have to pay at the end of my loans. There’s been more strife, more wailing/gnashing of teeth, more tears related to this incident than that, but it’s not worth rehashing. Point is, I’m revisiting PSYC 6211. Gavin is a wee bit less clingy now. And, when he becomes so, I have more resources at my disposal (new friends! babysitters!). Whatever the case, Walden allows me to retake the course, and my new grade will calculate into my GPA, even though the stain of the F will be there forever. Ouch.

I’ll allow myself the luxury of blogging as long as I’m caught up with school. Frankly, knowing that I had unfinished work for the Winter Quarter is what’s kept me from it for this long; how could I justify blogging if I still. had. a. paper. to. write? Yeah, that worked well, didn’t it? Whatever the case, I have my first two “primary” pieces done, and only need to write a few responses to classmates’ work for this week. That feels good, and I like what I’m writing, for the most part.

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.

This For Better or For Worse strip made me laugh. And cringe.

Anyone have suggestions for how to handle this kind of situation?