Select a neurological, psychological, or neurodevelopmental disorder.

December 2, 2022/in Uncategorized /by SK

Select a neurological, psychological, or neurodevelopmental disorder.

Write a 2,450- to 3,500-word paper comparing and contrasting three therapeutic interventions used to treat this disorder. Compare measures of effectiveness, such as validity, efficacy, symptom and behavior management, and recidivism. One therapy should be cognitive in nature, one should be pharmacological in nature, and the third should be an alternative therapeutic treatment.

Identify common symptoms associated with your disorder and rates of symptom reduction or management as reported with the three treatments. Based on your research, what would be your approach to treating the condition? Identify which treatments you would use. Explain why.

Analyze the neurophysiological underpinnings of diseases and disorders.
Examine contemporary attitudes toward the three treatments you selected.
Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines.
Include 7 to 10 peer-reviewed sources.

Sensory Perceptions Assignment

December 2, 2022/in Uncategorized /by SK

Assignment 1: Sensory Perceptions
Due Week 3 and worth 100 points

Can you really trust your senses and the interpretation of sensory data to give you an accurate view of the world? Describe and discuss the accuracy and the weaknesses of the human senses as they pertain to thinking in general and to your own thinking in particular.

Write a two to three (2-3) page paper in which you:
1.    Provide at least three (3) reasons for believing in the accuracy or inaccuracy of sensory information.
2.    Identify and describe at least three (3) factors contributing to the accuracy of sensory data.
3.    Discuss the role of memory with regard to the interpretation and evaluation of sensory data.
4.    Use at least two (2) quality resources in this assignment. Your textbook may count as one (1) source. At least one (1) of your sources must be obtained from the collection of databases accessible from the Learning Resources Center Web page.

Your assignment must:
• Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
• Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.

The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:
•    Develop skills for overcoming barriers which limit objective and productive critical thinking.
•    Create written work utilizing the concepts of critical thinking.
•    Demonstrate adherence to academic integrity policy and APA Style guidelines for academic citations.
•    Use technology and information resources to research issues in critical thinking skills and informal logic.
•    Write clearly and concisely about issues in critical thinking using proper writing mechanics.

Grading for this assignment will be based on answer quality, logic/organization of the paper, and language and writing skills, using this rubric.

FOURTH EDITION

An Interdisciplinary Approach to Critical and Creative Thought

FOURTH EDITION

THINKING An Interdisciplinary Approach to Critical

and Creative Thought

GARY R. KIRBY JEFFERY R. GOODPASTER

UPPER SADDLE RIVER, NEW JERSEY 07458

IS B

N 1

-2 56

-0 92

26 -6

Thinking: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Critical and Creative Thought, Fourth Edition, by Gary R. Kirby and Jeffery R. Goodpaster. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Kirby, Gary R. Thinking : an interdisciplinary approach to critical and creative thought / Gary R. Kirby,

Jeffery R. Goodpaster.— 4th ed. p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Thought and thinking. I. Goodpaster, Jeffery R. II. Title. BF441.K49 2006 153.4’2—dc22

2006003331

Editor-in-Chief: Sarah Touborg Senior Acquisitions Editor: Mical Moser Editorial Assistant: Carla Worner Sr. Managing Editor: Joanne Riker Production Liaison: Fran Russello Marketing Assistant: Vicki Devita Cover Design: Kiwi Design Cover Illustration/Photo: Getty Images, Inc. Manager, Cover Visual Research & Permissions: Karen Sanatar Project Management/Compositon: Sarvesh Mehrotra, GTS/TechBooks Printer/Binder: RR Donnelly, Harrisonburg Cover Printer: RR Donnelly, Harrisonburg

Credits and acknowledgments borrowed from other sources and reproduced, with permission, in this textbook appear on appropriate page within text.

Copyright © 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 07458. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. This publication is protected by Copyright and permission should be obtained from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or likewise. For information regarding permission(s), write to: Rights and Permissions Department.

Pearson Education LTD. Pearson Education, Canada, Ltd Pearson Education Australia PTY, Limited Pearson Educación de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. Pearson Education Singapore, Pte. Ltd Pearson Education–Japan Pearson Education North Asia Ltd Pearson Education Malaysia, Pte. Ltd

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

ISBN 0-13-220974-8

IS B

N 1-256-09226-6

WHAT IS THINKING?

We are such stuff as thoughts are made on. —ADAPTED FROM

OUR CULTURAL LEGACY

In this book we encourage you to engage your mind and plunge into thinking. But first, let’s meet some powerful thinkers who have preceded us.

Humans were speaking, and thus thinking, many millennia before the Sumerians, the Egyptians, and the Phoenicians learned to write their thoughts. The Greeks took their alphabet and burst forth into song, literature, philosophy, rhetoric, history, art, politics, and science. They needed to know how to argue their positions in their free democracy, and Corax of Syracuse, perhaps the first rhetorician, taught them how to use words to pierce into other minds. The sophists, skeptics, and cynics questioned everything, including their own ques- tioning. What would our world be like if we still held primitive beliefs such as Zeus throws thunderbolts ? Socrates probed and prodded the Athenians to think: “The unexamined life is not worth living,” he said. And he threw down to us the ultimate gauntlet : “Know thyself.” Plato was so caught up with Socrates and with the pure power of the mind that he thought we were born

CHAPTER 1CHAPTER

SHAKESPEARE

IS B

N 1

-2 56

-0 92

26 -6

2 CHAPTER 1 ■ What Is Thinking?

with ideas and that these innate ideas were as close as we could come to divinity. Plato’s pupil, Aristotle, sharpened his senses to make impressive empirical obser- vations that climbed toward first principles; then he honed his mind into the ab- solute logic of the syllogism that stepped inexorably, deductively downward.

The Roman rhetoricians, Cicero, Tertullian, and Quintilian needing to argue their political and legal positions, built massive mental structures that rivaled Rome’s architectural vastness.

The medieval thinkers, mental to a point that matched their ethereal (heav- enly) thinking, created mental structures mainly based on Plato, fortified with the logic of Aristotle. Aquinas, in his Summa, forged an unmatched mental cre- ation that, if one grants his premises, still stands as an unassailable mountain of the mind. In contrast to much of this abstraction was the clean cut of Occam’s razor, slicing off unnecessary entities, and the welcome freshness of Anselm, who preempted Descartes by stating, “I doubt, therefore I know.”

The Renaissance thinkers turned their minds and energies to earthly navi- gation, sidereal science, art, pleasure, and empire. Some of these thinkers, like Leonardo da Vinci returned to the Greeks (Archimedes); some, like Montaigne, recovered rich ore in the Romans, sifted by the skepticism described on a medal around his neck: Que sai-s je? (“What do I know?”).

Pascal called his whole book of aphorisms Thoughts. Descartes echoed Anselm—“I think, therefore I am”—and challenged our pride by telling us that “it is not enough to have a good mind. The main thing is to use it well” (Les Dis- cours, Vol. 1). Those were the French rationalists.

No less rational, the British empiricists progressed from Locke’s Aristotelian focus on the senses (the mind as a tabula rasa), to Berkeley’s idea that we can be sure only of our perceptions’ to Hume’s radical skepticism.

Hegel looked on all history as an idea unfolding, and Marx concretized and capitalized that idea.

More modern thinkers like Wittgenstein, Whorf, and Chomsky all enter the open, unfolding, and marvelous arena of the mind. They welcome us to come, enter with them, and think. . . .

WHY THINK?

Is anything more important than thinking? Is anything important that is not connected with thinking? STOP! Did you think about the first question before you read the second one? Our guess is that many of you kept reading; conse- quently, you may have missed a chance to think.

IS B

N 1-256-09226-6

3Why Think?

THINKING ACTIVITY 1.1

Things More Important Than Thinking

Let’s start thinking now. Can you list anything more important than thinking?

1. ____________________________________________________________ 2. ____________________________________________________________ 3. ____________________________________________________________ 4. ____________________________________________________________

What is on your list? How did you determine its value?

Thoughts Richer Than Gold

Take a look at the following very different lists. Are the items on any one list more important than thinking?

List A List B List C money breathing goodness good job eating life nice house exercising love new car mating truth

Think about list A. Although money is high on the list of American dreams, it cannot be earned or spent without the ability to think. Imagine a chimpanzee (limited ability) or a mannequin (no ability) trying to earn money or even spend it. Thinking is often behind the making of money. Larry Ellison, one of com- puter software’s financial giants, says: “I observe and I plan and I think and I strategize” (Ramo, 1997, p. 58). Clearly, the ability to think is more important than money, jobs, houses, or cars.

What about list B? Is breathing more important than thinking? At this point we need to think more sharply and define the word important. If important means a sequentially first or necessary condition for something else to exist, then breathing is more important than thinking, for without oxygen the thinking brain quickly dies. But if important means a higher order or value, then thinking is of a higher order than breathing because breathing “serves” the brain (which, by the way, uses a disproportionately large amount of the oxygen). Rarely, however, does the cerebral cortex “serve” breathing, such as when one is studying to be a respiratory therapist.

Another way to understand that thinking is of a higher order than breathing is to realize that many philosophers since Aristotle have defined humans as “thinking animals.” In other words, horses and horseflies breathe, but thinking

IS B

N 1

-2 56

-0 92

26 -6

4 CHAPTER 1 ■ What Is Thinking?

makes us human; if humans are of a higher order than animals, it is our think- ing that makes us so. As a quality of a higher order, thinking is more important than eating, mating, or breathing.

And what do we think about list C? Are not goodness, life, love, and truth vast concepts of great importance? To weigh their importance against that of think- ing would take many pages and much thought; but to judge quickly the worth of thinking, we can again ask the question, is anything important that is not connected with thinking?

If we have thought of anything, we have just used our thinking process; thus we have connected thinking to the item we thought of, regardless of how important the item is. Similarly, love, life, truth, and goodness are necessarily con- nected with thinking. We may be able to mate without much thinking, like two fireflies, but we cannot love without thinking. Thus we think as we live life.

Just how important is thinking in relation to life? Since we think largely with language, consider how Wittgenstein connects life and thinking: “The lim- its of my language are the limits of my life.” Is this an accurate statement? Does language limit life so strictly? If so, does this limitation show the importance of language and thinking? We will meet this idea again in Chapter 5, “Language: Our Thinking Medium.”

Thinking as Possibility

Our life at this moment, as we read this book and make choices about our actions today, is strictly limited by how much we have learned and by the thinking pat- terns we have developed. We can only choose to do what we know; for example, we simply cannot search for a sunken treasure unless we know that it sank. And the more we know and the better we can think with our knowledge, the more successful we are likely to be. If we know that a Spanish galleon, laden with Inca gold, sank in the Caribbean, and if we can think about the route it might have followed, the ocean currents, and its last reported sighting, then we might find the gold. More importantly, by thinking we might find the gold in our own lives.

THINK ABOUT IT: Your thoughts

become your words become your actions

become your habits become your character

become you

IS B

N 1-256-09226-6

5What Is Thinking?

Thoughts Accumulate

Tennyson tells us that “we are a part of all that we have met.” Likewise, we are also part of all that we have thought; to a degree, we have become what we have thought about, and who we will become is limited by how and what we think. If we reflected earlier about language limiting life, we probably realized that our thinking has set the boundaries for our past choices in life. We have chosen from what we have known and how we have been able to think about our knowledge.

Life Without Thinking

Ignorance is the night of the mind, a night without moon or stars. —CONFUCIUS

What if we acquired no new thoughts for the next ten years? Could we hold our jobs? What would we think about quarks and nanotechnology? How well would we talk to people?

If in the next ten years we choose to read many thoughtful books, will our mind be different? Will we be markedly different because of the books we read, the people we listen to, the thoughts we have, and the way we express those thoughts? Certainly, thoughts accumulate. We grow as we think, and thus we change our future ability to think.

Thoughts accumulate not just arithmetically but exponentially. Each thought has the potential to merge with others and create an enormous num- ber of new thoughts; for instance, just forty-six items (your chromosomes) can be assembled into 25,852,010,000,000,000,000,000 combinations. With a six- thousand-word active vocabulary, imagine the creative combinations! In Chapter 7, “Creative Thinking,” we will learn how to form some of these combinations.

WHAT IS THINKING?

Tell me what is a thought and of what substance is it made? —WILLIAM BLAKE

Right now you are thinking. Think about it. What exactly are you doing now? What is happening in your head as you think? Can you figure out how you have just processed these words into meaning? Simply put, how does your brain work?

The Mystery

Do not feel bad if you do not know the answer because neither do the experts. The Nobel laureate author Gerald Edelman at the beginning of this millennium said, “What goes on in your head when you have a thought . . . the answer must

IS B

N 1

-2 56

-0 92

26 -6

6 CHAPTER 1 ■ What Is Thinking?

still be: we do not really know” (2000, p. 201). Humans have learned much about areas of the brain and neuroelectrochemical processes, but much is still to be discovered. We know more of the basic principles of the universe, of the atom, and of our bodies than we do of our brains. Newton drew the lines of forces connecting the earth to the stars, Einstein formulated the energy in mat- ter, Watson and Crick cracked the genetic code, but the model for the brain has not yet been found. (Some possible models include tabula rasa, or blank tablet, memory grooves, a computer, a hologram, and recently the metaphor itself.) Despite our fast accumulating knowledge of the brain, it remains a mystery.

Toward a Definition: Thinking as Communicating

If we do not understand the workings of the brain, if we cannot enter its inner sanctum and unfold its mystery, then how can we define thinking? One way to reach a definition is by observing the results of thinking as expressed in human communication. But what if some people claim that they do “thinking” that is to- tally internal and can never be externally communicated? We will not argue with them, but if they cannot talk about it or share it with us, their thinking cannot be useful to us. Therefore, we can define thinking as the activity of the brain that can potentially be communicated. The media of communication are multiple: language (speaking, writing, signing, paralanguage, miming), images (computer graphics, blueprints, charts, symbols), art (drawing, painting, sculpting, model- ing, architecture, music, dance), scientific formulas, and mathematics. All of these forms of communication have their special subtleties and strengths, but far and away the primary form of human communication is language; therefore, this book focuses on thinking as the activity of the brain that can potentially be expressed in speaking or writing.

The potential to express our thoughts includes, of course, the unexpressed thinking that is almost always in our heads: we plan the day and imagine sce- narios; we worry through problems and search for solutions; we daydream; we discover, invent, and create systems; we enjoy reflecting on our ventures, and sometimes we redesign our failures. Unexpressed thinking is valuable, and we use it often before speaking or acting.

COMMUNICATING: THE MIRROR OF THOUGHT

How do we think about our thinking? That’s not an easy question because we are caught in a circle: trying to know our mind with our mind is analogous to trying to see our eyes with our eyes. The eyes need a reflector such as a mirror or a still pond to see themselves. Similarly, to understand our thinking we need a mirror for our mind. Writing or talking can provide just such a mirror. Expressing our

IS B

N 1-256-09226-6

7Communicating: The Mirror of Thought

thoughts allows us to look at them more objectively; others, then, can share their ideas about our thinking, and so, ultimately, we can think better.

Writing records our thinking on a piece of paper so that we can then exam- ine it. Try writing for sixty seconds as fast as you can on whatever comes to your mind without censoring any thought. In that way you will be able to externalize some of your thinking.

This externalization will probably not give us an exact replication of our thinking but will generate a cloudy mirror. The clouds will begin to clear if we repeat this activity often and learn to chart our thinking with our pen. Penning our thoughts is a challenge because the brain moves much faster than the pen, much faster than a “rapper” rapping 300 words per minute. The exact speed of the brain is not known, but let us guess that it is about 500 to 700 words per minute. Often the brain moves even faster because it does not think every word. Sometimes it leaps over phrases and whole groups of ideas to jump to almost instant insight.

We can also find out much about ourselves by looking for patterns in those sixty-second sketches: What are the topics that occupy our thoughts (People? Things? Money? Work? Home?)? What is on our sixty-second list? How much time do we spend rehashing the past, processing the present, planning the future, or

THE CENTRALITY OF THINKING

You have only to look at the diagram below to see the importance of, the centrality of, thinking. Much of the stimuli around you enters your mind, you process it, or think, and then, if you choose, you respond.

INPUT OUTPUT

Listen Speak

Observe ActTHINKING

Read Write

IS B

N 1

-2 56

-0 92

26 -6

8 CHAPTER 1 ■ What Is Thinking?

daydreaming about our fantasies? Placing a percentage alongside those time frames (past, present, future) might amaze us.

Attempt these sixty-second snapshots at different times and in different places to get other sketches of your mind. They will change greatly with your environment and your feelings.

Thinking as Writing: Clarity, Exactness, Awareness, Richness

Print allows you to hold another’s mind in your hand. —JAMES BURKE

Writing does more than mirror our mind. It can clarify it, sharpen our thinking, and enrich our mind with an understanding that was not there before we wrote.

Clarity is a gift writing gives to our thinking. “We do not write in order to be understood, we write in order to understand,” said C. Day Lewis. Although many of us can “think on our feet,” few humans can continually think crystal clearly. Our brains rarely function continually at a high level of clarity. With writing we have a chance to achieve some of that clarity. We can put our think- ing on paper and excise the ambiguity. This sentence, for instance, has been reworked until several readers approved of its clarity. And this clarity achieved in writing might even influence the type of person we are becoming: Francis Bacon tells us that writing makes an “exact” person.

Besides bringing clarity and exactness to our thinking, writing can intensify our physical and mental awareness. Just the attempt to describe what we are see- ing, feeling, and thinking can allow us to see sharply, feel deeply, and think more clearly. Later we explore these areas more thoroughly, but a warm-up activity is given below.

THINKING ACTIVITY 1.2

Thinking, Sensing, Writing

Look around the room. In the first column quickly make a list of what you see.

1 2 3

____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________

Now in the second column make a list of what you did not see before. You can become aware of what you missed by looking between the items

(continued)

IS B

N 1-256-09226-6

9Communicating: The Mirror of Thought

THINKING ACTIVITY 1.2 (Continued)

on your first list. If, for instance, your first item is a blackboard and your second item a student, notice what is between the blackboard and the student that you overlooked. Go ahead now and make a second list of overlooked items.

These two lists can tell you a lot about what kind of data you are put- ting into your mind. The first list might contain your usual observations, your usual “input” to your brain. The second list might contain items that you usually pass over. Now for the third list, try to see the most minute details of what you again overlooked. Try to see reflections of light, sur- face undulations, scratches and dents so small and so specific that they become hard to describe because there may not be exact words for them in our language. In the third column make a third list of small, sharp details that you see. To help you achieve this microscopic awareness, you may wish to peer into objects very close to you.

Has this third list helped you see new things? If you begin to record what you see, you will grow more alert and see what you never saw before. Try this looking activity in different places. And then attune your- self to your other senses of hearing, smell, touch, and taste. Respond with your feelings to what you sense. Finally, think about what you have sensed and felt. What does it mean?

Writing then, can mirror the mind, focus it into a state of clarity, and pres- ent new awarenesses. Beyond these gifts, writing offers another rich gift that is a paradox: When we pour water out of a glass, we are emptying the glass, but when we pour thoughts out of our mind onto paper, we are filling our mind. As we assemble those thoughts into a new written structure, we are writing a new combination of words that was not in our mind before we wrote it down; hence, this powerful paradox: As we write something we create it both on the paper and in our mind. Thus, as we write we grow richer.

The poet Byron expresses this paradox in words that challenge our thinking:

’Tis to create, and in creating live A being more intense, that we endow With form our fancy, gaining as we give The life we image. (Lord Byron, Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage)

Because writing is important as expressed thought, throughout this book you should take time to write out your thinking, especially when you wish clar- ification or feedback.

IS B

N 1

-2 56

-0 92

26 -6

10 CHAPTER 1 ■ What Is Thinking?

Thinking as Dialogue: Validation and Insight

Thought and speech are inseparable from each other. —CARDINAL JOHN HENRY NEWMAN

We have seen that writing is a way to know, clarify, and enrich our thinking. Dialoguing is another way to attempt to know and understand our thinking. Dialoguing is simply talking with and listening to other people. They be- come the sounding boards, the graveyards, and the launching platforms of our thoughts. As we will see in a later chapter, dialoguing is crucial to test our thoughts.

While we talk (expressing our thoughts), we can watch what effect our words have on others. Do people wrinkle their foreheads and repeatedly ask us, “What do you mean?” Or do our words quickly and easily get our ideas across? Do peo- ple lose interest in what we are saying, or do our words have the power, precision, and logic to gain attention, to hold attention, and to convince others? Their reactions give us information that helps us to judge and adjust our thinking.

As we observe these reactions of others, we need to interpret them, but some- times we get direct, focused comments from friends, students, or fellow learners who specifically critique our thinking as expressed in dialogue. One cautionary note concerning unrecorded dialogue is that it is gone as soon as it is spoken: “To base thought only on speech is to try nailing whispers to the wall” (Rosenthal, 1994). At the end of this chapter, some activities provide practice in critiquing dialogue.

Because human interaction is so important to our thinking, throughout this book we present activities that can be discussed, and we analyze the validity of dialogue in Chapter 13, “Evaluating.” Besides validating our thinking, dialogu- ing can stimulate our thinking. Our thoughts can resound and rebound with new shape and vigor from the thoughts of others. Our ideas can intermingle, cross-fertilize, and become the seeds for whole new species of thoughts. A single head is a lonely thinker; however, we can seek out classmates, friends, colleagues, and new acquaintances who can excite our mind.

MISTHINKING

The opposite of clear thinking is confusion, and it can lead to costly conclu- sions. A young American inventor appeared before Napoleon and offered him a means to defeat the British navy: a ship that could sail against the wind and waves and outmaneuver the British fleet. Napoleon scorned his offer, called the American a crackpot, and sent him away. That young man was Robert Fulton. Napoleon had just turned down the steamship.

IS B

N 1-256-09226-6

11Summary

Napoleon’s thinking error was common to most of us: He was blinded by the past. In addition, he was blinded by his quick temper. Instead of opening his mind and asking “how,” his imperial temper may have cost him the war. In Chapter 2, “Personal Barriers,” we will examine our personal thinking tenden- cies and barriers that could blind us from thinking clearly.

THINK ABOUT IT: We are not emperors, but we have mental blinders and habitual filters that block our thinking. Think for a moment about how we could make serious blunders. What are some of the topics we just will not listen to, the people whom we will not hear, the books we will not touch? How could our own thinking patterns lead us to costly conclusions?

SUMMARY

We have thought about the enormous importance of our thinking and how it can greatly impact our future. We have even had the audacity to rate thinking as more important than money. Although much of thinking remains a mystery in the vast, unexplored realm of our brain, writing and speaking can provide an entry into our unknown selves. Writing can be a mirror of our thoughts, a mir- ror that can give us clarity, exactness, awareness, and richness. The opposite, cloudy thinking, can miss its mark and cost us dearly.

We have just begun to probe the mystery of thinking. In coming chapters we will look more deeply into our thinking patterns and the way our language, beliefs, and values influence those patterns. We will then look at some of our major thinking “bases”: sensing, feeling, creating, organizing, reasoning, scien- tific thinking, persuading, and problem solving; finally, we will look at evalua- tion, decision, and action.

Thinking Challenges

We have already suggested several thinking activities that can begin to help you to understand the thinking process. The following thinking challenges are designed to stimulate your thinking about issues related to this chapter. Your responses to the activities and questions that conclude each chapter might take various forms:

A simple reflection A journal entry A chat with a friend

IS B

N 1

-2 56

-0 92

26 -6

12 CHAPTER 1 ■ What Is Thinking?

A dialogue with a student A class discussion A group discussion A formal paper A research project An individual or group presentation

1. How do you think differently from other people? Does your mind seem to move quickly or slowly? Do your thoughts come out in jumbles or clear steps? Are there certain times of the day that are better for certain types of thinking?

2. Write as you did for the sixty-second snapshots of your thinking but for a longer time. Then look into your writings as the mirror of your mind. Grad- ually see if you can wipe some of the fog off the glass and begin to get some understanding of what is in your mind.

3. Is Wittgenstein accurate when he says that “the limits of my language are the limits of my life”?

4. How might you think differently ten years from now according to the books you’ve read and the words you have written and spoken? What if you have not read any books?

5. Record a trip into your mind in any way you wish. You might try a stream- of-consciousness account like the novelist James Joyce, who often just lets the impressions of his mind pour out; you might make a list of associative think- ing (for example, black—white—snow—snowman—bully who knocked mine down . . .). Enter a fantasy, a daydream, or any kind of thinking. The point is to attempt to become more aware of what you think about and how you think.

6. Look around, in different places, and describe what you don’t usually see or hear. Think about why you do not usually see those things. What does this tell you about the interests of your mind?

7. Talk with someone else, and attempt to read the reactions your words are having on that person. Judge your thinking processes accordingly.

8. How might your particular thinking patterns lead you into costly errors? For instance, do you quickly accept what you read or hear? Do appearances of things or feelings of others strongly sway you?

9. Have you ever approached a problem, thought it through, and reached a decision that worked well for you? What were the thinking steps you took to produce those satisfactory results?

10. Have you ever jumped too quickly to a conclusion? Why? Have you ever been “absolutely certain” and then discovered you were wrong? What had you overlooked in your thinking?

IS B

N 1-256-09226-6

13Summary

11. If, as Tennyson says, “I am a part of all that I have met,” what are the main events, persons, and places that have formed you? How have they formed your mind?

12. Thomas West (2004) has written a book with the intriguing title Thinking Like Einstein. He contends that because of our visual media, we are reading less and imaging more. He thinks visual thinking will replace word-based modes of teaching and learning. What do you think of that possibility? What do you think of images replacing spoken and written words?

13. “Print allows you to hold another mind in your hand,” explains historian James Burke. What do you think he means by this? How much of your mind do you think you can express in print?

14. Before we go further into this book, take some time to reflect upon the mys- tery of thinking. Ask yourself some questions that you would like to find answers to as you think through this book.

IS B

N 1

-2 56

-0 92

26 -6

PERSONAL BARRIERS

Man is an emotional animal, occasionally rational; and through his feelings he can be deceived to his heart’s content.

MANSIONS OF PHILOSOPHY

Who we are is how we think. Where and how we were raised may determine whether we are pessimists or optimists, conserva- tives or liberals, atheists or theists, idealists or realists. Our upbringing shapes our fears, which keep us from facing thoughts. It shapes our self-concept, which moves us to defend our thoughts. And it shapes our emotions, which can distort our thinking to an exceptional degree. In this and in other ways our psycholog- ical world, shaped by our exposure to cultural and genetic forces, often acts as a barrier to sound thinking. In this chapter we learn about these barriers so that we can diffuse some of their negative influence on our thinking. But this re- quires that we face ourselves honestly and completely, so that we can discover the personal factors that inhibit our thinking. Unless we face the fact of who we re- ally are, we will not become the sound thinkers we are meant to be.

ENCULTURATION

Imagine for a moment that you have the genetic constitution you have now but were raised by parents in another country. Imagine how you would be different. If you were raised in India, you would probably be of Hindu faith, believe in

CHAPTER CHAPTER

—WILL DURANT,

IS B

N 1-256-09226-6

15Enculturation

reincarnation, and be familiar with many gods and goddesses, such as Vishnu, Shiva, Shakti, Krishna, and Rama. Or perhaps you would be of the Jain religion, revering animal life so much that you would never eat meat and would even sweep insects out of your house instead of killing them. If you were raised by parents in Iran, you would probably despise American capitalism and revere Muhammad above Jesus. If you were a man in the Sambian tribe of New Guinea, you would likely engage in homosexual behavior until you were married. And if you were a woman in the Mbuti tribe in Africa, you would feel comfortable roaming your community in nothing but a loincloth. Even your taste preference is subject to cul- tural forces. In America, your favorite pizza topping might be sausage and mush- room, but in Japan it would probably be squid, in England tuna and corn, and in India pickled ginger. In sum, many of the values and preferences you have now, including religious ideas, sexual mores, and work ethic, were instilled in you since birth by your culture. This process, called enculturation, is going on continually, even now, no matter what your age. What does this have to do with thinking? Just this: The extent to which you are able to think critically about ideas that conflict with your basic attitudes and values is inversely related to the extent to which you are enculturated. If you accept only your enculturated notions of the world with- out resisting them, challenging them, thinking critically about them, you become a “logical egoist” a term used by Kant for close-minded people who are so sure of the correctness of their ideas that they see no reason to test them against the intel- lect of others. Ben Franklin seems to cite an example of this:

But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibil- ity as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain French lady who, in a dispute with her sister, said: “I don’t know how it happens, Sister, but I meet with nobody but myself that is always in the right.” (Franklin, 1945, pp. 681–82)

Sources of Enculturation

Enculturation has many different sources or influences. One of the major influ- ences is the family in which we grow up. There we learn our religious beliefs, eth- ical standards, prejudices and stereotypes, eating habits, and worldview. The two great depth psychologists of the twentieth century, for example, Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, accused each other of being negatively influenced by their family background. Jung accused Freud of establishing a negative psychology because he was Jewish, while Freud accused Jung of being blinded by his strong religious background, which prevented him from accepting sexual maladjust- ment as the root cause of neurosis (Puner, 1947). The twentieth-century philoso- pher Bertrand Russell saw Immanuel Kant’s moral argument for the existence of God as rooted “in the maxims that he had imbibed at his mother’s knee” (Russell, 1957, p. 11), and Will Durant wrote of the influence of Martin Luther’s parents,

IS B

N 1

-2 56

-0 92

26 -6

16 CHAPTER 2 ■ Personal Barriers

who pushed him into the cloistered life through their repeated thrashing of him during youth, and who passed to him their vision of a hard, strict God and their beliefs in witches, elves, angels, and demons (Durant, 1957, p. 341).

Another source of enculturation is our place of work. Here we may learn cer- tain manners of behavior, dress code, professional ethics, and work attitude. The city in which we grow up can also be a strong source of enculturation. Some cities are known for wine and theater, others for beer and brats. Some cities tend to de- velop men with a lot of machismo, whereas others allow more tolerance for an- drogyny. In Milwaukee they may prefer Miller Beer, in Denver they may have a strong preference for Coors, and in Munich it may be Lowenbrau. Are the taste buds of citizens in these cities different? Or have the citizens learned to prefer one over the other? And what do you suppose the residents of Detroit think about Japanese automobiles? In the United States we can also find differences in encul- turation between northerners and southerners. Southern males, for example, think differently about the use of violence in self-protection and honor (Nisbett and Cohen, 1996). In sum, how we think about masculinity, violence, food and drink, sex, God, and most other things is often a matter of enculturation. The more we examine these enculturation effects on ourselves, the more we can think more ob- jectively, more independently, more clearly about various matters in the world.

THINK ABOUT IT: Can you think of other differences in behaviors, values, and ideas between people in the northern and southern sections of the United States? What about the eastern and western sections?

SOME COMMON AMERICAN BELIEFS

1. It’s okay to kill animals. The Jains of India consider it sinful to kill even insects.

2. It’s morally wrong to go outside without clothing, no matter where you live. Women in the Netherlands feel quite comfortable gardening in their backyard topless. And many tribes in Africa, of course, go without clothing or wear very little of it.

3. Intentionally deforming the body is sick. It was once traditional in China to wrap the feet of young girls for years to keep the feet ab- normally small. Such abnormality was considered a mark of beauty. And in some tribes in Africa, deforming the lips and ears, making them abnormally large, is also considered a mark of beauty. Perhaps deformation of the body is no longer considered “sick” by most

(continued)

IS B

N 1-256-09226-6

17Enculturation

SOME COMMON AMERICAN BELIEFS (Continued)

Americans. Consider: In the United States most women, and some men, put holes in their ears; most males have the foreskin of their penis removed; and many thousands of women each year have surgery to enlarge their breasts. Maybe what is considered “sick” is only those deformations that are not done in one’s own culture.

4. There is only one God. This monotheism is characteristic of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. Most other religions are polytheistic.

5. Jesus is God. People of Jewish and Islamic faith would certainly dis- agree with this.

6. The Christian Bible is the only holy book. Of course, virtually every non-Christian would disagree. There are many books considered to be holy. The Koran and the Bhagavad-Gita are two examples.

7. It’s all about money! The American obsession with money is catching fire throughout the world, but some cultures put less emphasis on it. Years ago, one Russian emigrant to the United States actually returned to Russia. His reason: Americans worship money like a god.

8. Marrying for reasons other than love is immoral. Throughout history and even today marriages are arranged for practical reasons: to strengthen family ties, for companionship, and for healthy offspring. Love grows later. In fact, people in some countries find our require- ment of romantic love for marriage absurd.

Religion and Enculturation

Most men indeed, as well as most sects in religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them, it is so far error.

—BEN FRANKLIN, AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL WRITINGS (LAST SPEECH)

Religion is one area in which it is easy to see the enculturation process and its effects on thinking. For example, most Americans are Christians because they were raised by Christian parents and not because of any deliberate choice on their part. Most Christians have not objectively investigated alternative religions or looked extensively into the history of their own religion. Most are unaware, for example, that some romantic stories of other religious founders, like stories of Jesus, involve miraculous and supernatural conceptions, or that the Buddhist and Jain codes of ethics are in some ways more strict than that of the Christian ten commandments. And most Christians are probably unaware of the numerous contradictions in their sacred text, of likely forgeries of some of the Epistles, of the alteration of texts by later scribes, of the geographical errors, and of the Epic of Gilgamesh, a myth about a Babylonian king much older than the Old Testament but with stories of a great flood, a man who built a boat to save his family, and a god who made man

IS B

N 1

-2 56

-0 92

26 -6

18 CHAPTER 2 ■ Personal Barriers

from clay. Nor are most Christians aware of the extent to which their own Christian doctrine has been shaped by “mere mortals” over the last seventeen hun- dred years. This lack of familiarity with one’s own religion and that of others, due to enculturation processes, is true not only of Christians, but also of Muslims, and at people of all faiths. Despite our moderate ignorance about our creed and those of others, most of us are certain that the beliefs of our faith are true, and the faith of others and their heroes is false. This we “know” without any investigation at all. Obviously, our thoughts about religion are based more on feelings engendered by our faith and our culture than on critical thinking based upon knowledge and rea- soned argument. As William James put it, “Reasoned argument is but a surface exhibition. Instinct leads, intelligence does but follow” (1902, p. 74).

Clearly, if people are seekers of truth and clear thinking, resisting encultur- ation and its blinding influence (including an examination of their own religion) becomes essential, for it allows people to step back from their conditioning to look at issues more objectively—ethical issues such as abortion, proofs for God’s existence, the meaning of life, new roles for women, and so on. A failure to re- sist enculturation, especially in religious areas, may lead to fanaticism. One con- sumed by this disease believes that, as William James puts it, “his deity’s enemies must be put to shame” (1902, p. 342). Out of fanaticism “crusades have been preached and massacres instigated for no other reason than to remove a fancied slight upon the God” (p. 335). Perhaps nobody puts it more bluntly than Robert Green Ingersoll (1955), the noted nineteenth-century agnostic orator:

Whenever a man believes that he has the exact truth from God, there is in that man no spirit of compromise. He has not the modesty born of the imperfec- tions of human nature; he has the arrogance of theological certainty and the tyranny born of ignorant assurance. Believing himself to be the slave of god, he imitates his master, and of all tyrants, the worst is a slave in power. (p. 589)

THINK ABOUT IT: Finding faults with a literal interpretation of a sacred text should not lead a person to rashly dismiss all its teachings that might be throwing out the baby with the bath water. There are timeless words of wisdom scattered throughout most holy books. But if some day you come to believe that, in the words of Nietzsche, “God is dead,” or that your holy book is riddled with contradictions, errors, and myths, would that mean that it would then be okay to steal, lie, cheat, rape, and kill? In other words, what reasons, besides biblical authority, can you find for the moral values and behavioral codes taught in most religions about stealing, lying, killing, forgiving others, etc.?

IS B

N 1-256-09226-6

(continued)

19Enculturation

THINKING ACTIVITY 2.1

An Exercise in Enculturation

Answer “yes” or “no” to the following questions. The purpose of this exercise is to examine the foundations of some of your thinking, not your conclusions, so don’t be concerned about whether your answer is right or wrong. Just be honest. In most instances there is no general agreement on what the right answer should be.

________ 1. Do you believe that the democratic form of government is the best kind of government in the world? ________ a. Are you aware of the problems of democracy

often cited by sociologists and people from nondemocratic countries?

SPINOZA: A MAN OF REASON

He was offered 1,000 florins a year to conceal his doubts; when he refused, an attempt was made to assassinate him.

—BERTRAND RUSSELL, A HISTORY OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY

One of the more notable resisters of enculturation was the philosopher Spinoza (1632–1677). He was a simple, poor, and humble man, a lens grinder and mystic of the seventeenth-century. He was raised Jewish, but his zeal for truth led him to study the philosophers of many faiths. Because his ideas challenged Jewish teachings, he was at the age of twenty-four excommunicated from his church and disowned by his father. To the Jews, he was a traitor, but in his own eyes, to desist from his challenges to Jew- ish dogma would make him a greater traitor, a traitor to the truth (Thomas and Thomas, 1959).

Many set out to convert him, or at least to refute him, but Spinoza stood steadfast, meeting his challengers with reasoned argument. His reliance on reason is apparent in this excerpt from a letter to one of his challengers:

Acknowledge the reason which God has given you, and follow that, unless you would be numbered with the brutes! (Elwes, p. 425)

Refusing gifts of money from his friends and a university position in philosophy—the latter with a contingency that he not challenge the es- tablished religion of the state—Spinoza died a poor man.

IS B

N 1

-2 56

-0 92

26 -6

20 CHAPTER 2 ■ Personal Barriers

THINKING ACTIVITY 2.1 (Continued)

________ b. Can you express the basic philosophy of alternative forms of government?

________ c. Can you cite any positive aspects of either communism or socialism?

________ 2. Do you believe that abortion is wrong in most or all cases? ________ a. Do you have well-reasoned arguments to

support your belief? ________ b. Does your definition of “human being” tell

you at what moment a human being comes into existence?

________ c. Do you know at what moment a developing fetus becomes conscious?

________ d. Do you know at what moment a developing fetus is capable of experiencing pain?

________ e. Can you cite any arguments used by pro- choice advocates to support abortion?

________ 3. Do you believe that capital punishment is justified for mass murderers? ________ a. Do you know that capital punishment is a

more expensive punishment than life imprison- ment because of the numerous and very ex- pensive judicial appeals involved in the former?

________ b. Have you seen any statistics that clearly show capital punishment to inhibit murder?

________ 4. Do you believe there is a God? ________ a. Are you aware of the problem of evil? ________ b. Can you present an argument against the

existence of God? ________ c. Are you aware of some of the logical proofs

for God and the challenges to these argu- ments?

________ 5. Do you believe that it is moral to use animals for medical experiments that may make life better for human beings? ________ a. Do you believe that it would be moral for

beings on another planet with intelligence superior to ours to use human beings as guinea pigs for the advancement of their alien culture?

IS B

N 1-256-09226-6

21Enculturation

(continued)

THINKING ACTIVITY 2.1 (Continued)

________ b. Have you ever seen laboratory animals suffer in an experimental setting?

________ c. Do you know that pigs are blowtorched under anesthesia, bunnies have their eyes sewed shut, and monkeys have their heads smashed to study the effects of burn treatment, cos- metics, and concussion respectively?

________ d. Have you ever read any argument against the use of animals in a laboratory?

________ e. Can you cite such an argument now?

________ 6. Do you believe that ESP is nonsense? ________ a. Have you read any studies by parapsycholo-

gists? ________ b. Are you familiar with any case histories of ESP? ________ c. Have you heard of J. B. Rhine? ________ d. Do you have a good argument for your posi-

tion?

________ 7. Do you believe that humans are the most intelligent life forms in the universe? ________ a. Do you know that there are billions of galaxies,

each with billions of stars, so that if just one in 10 billion stars has a planet with life, there would be over one trillion planets with life?

________ b. Do you know that human life emerged on this planet in about 4.5 billion years and that the universe is old enough for this evolution- ary process to have happened three times in succession?

________ c. Are you aware that astronomers have discov- ered many planets orbiting our nearby stars?

________ 8. Do you believe that one racial group is innately superior to another? ________ a. Do you know of any evidence that will sup-

port your belief? ________ b. Do you know the extent to which the envi-

ronment determines intelligence and eco- nomic success?

________ c. Do you know the amount of genetic similar- ity among racial groups?

IS B

N 1

-2 56

-0 92

26 -6

22 CHAPTER 2 ■ Personal Barriers

THINKING ACTIVITY 2.1 (Continued)

________ 9. Do you believe that the United States is the best country in the world? ________ a. Do you know that the U.S. infant mortality

rate is higher than that of many other modern industrial countries?

________ b. Do you know that the United States has one of the highest rates of violent crime in the world?

________ c. Do you know that the top 1 percent of the U.S. population holds more than 40 percent of all wealth in the country, more than the combined wealth of the bottom 90 percent, reflecting the greatest inequality among ad- vanced industrial countries?

________ d. Do you know that people in many other countries have longer life spans than people in the United States?

________10. Do you believe that humans did not evolve from lower life forms but were created separately? ________ a. Have you ever read a book on the evidence

for evolution? ________ b. Have you ever talked to a paleontologist,

geologist, biochemist, or zoologist about evolution?

________ c. Do you know that 95 percent of our genes are identical to those of a chimpanzee?

________ d. Are you aware of any of the following?

Homologous structures Vestigial traces Major fossil discoveries DNA similarities How our embryonic ontogeny recapitulates

phylogeny

If you answered “yes” to the numbered questions above, but “no” to the lettered questions that follow, it could be that you have merely adopted your position through an enculturation process—that is, you have picked up your ideas through peers, parents, religious community, and so on,

IS B

N 1-256-09226-6

23Self-Concept

instead of through careful reflection and the gathering of facts. A “yes” response to many of the questions above is not necessarily wrong and could be supported by sound reasoning and facts. Though it might ap- pear so, this is not an exercise to support “liberal” views. The point is not to determine what is true about these issues but to show the encultura- tion process at work by illustrating the lack of both thinking and knowl- edge that tends to go into these beliefs.

SELF-CONCEPT

It happens over and over again. A company that is doing pretty well in a business it knows will take over another company and ruin it. . . . Why do companies make such big mistakes? One reason, I suggest, is ego. They want to show they are the biggest, smartest kids on the block. . . . When will these guys grow up?

—JACK NEASE, “AT&T–NCR COMBO JUST DIDN’T COMPUTE ”

Recognizing the extent of our enculturation lessens its effects and moves us closer to an open mind, which is essential to critical and creative thinking. But we must also deal with other barriers that inhibit sound thinking, one of which is self-concept.

Our self-concept is the way we view ourselves. It may be unhealthy if we see ourselves rather negatively (for example, as not very intelligent or very pretty); or it may be healthy, if we see ourselves positively (as attrac- tive and worthwhile). What goes into our self-concept may include not only intelligence and attractiveness but a variety of other things: the sports team we favor, our grades in school, our home, friends, religion, state, country, car, political position, values, possessions, and so on. Thus, some- one may view herself as an American, a “card-carrying Republican,” a 49er fan, a conservative Catholic, an animal rights activist, an exceptionally beautiful person, and a consumer who would never buy anything but a Mercedes. People vary in the degree to which they use their attributes, things, values, and affiliations to define themselves and form their self-con- cept. To some people, these elements are central to the notion of self; they defend them as though they were defending themselves. Thus, we hear sto- ries of sports fans assaulting others because of some critical remark against their favorite football team, teenagers killing each other over a pair of

THINKING ACTIVITY 2.1 (Continued)

IS B

N 1

-2 56

-0 92

26 -6

24 CHAPTER 2 ■ Personal Barriers

athletic shoes, and wars between countries over sacred buildings and dif- ferent religious beliefs. When these elements become so central to our no- tion of who we are, we are not likely to think critically about them. Instead, we respond emotionally and may engage in ego-defense mecha- nisms, self-serving biases, and other distortions to ensure ourselves that what we identify with—that is, what we think we are—is good.

THINKING ACTIVITY 2.2

The Idea of Self

What is our idea of self? Were we born with it? It seems not. Then have we made it our own creation? If so, have we done the right thing in cre- ating it? Does the self truly exist? Or is it only the mind’s idea? Whether our idea of self refers to a real or an illusory self, most of us will agree that we do spend a lot of time defending, maintaining, and creating that idea of self—for example, when we fight with others when they demean us, explain away a bad exam grade in order to appear more intelligent, or buy a new car to show off our wealth. Buddhist scholar and monk Walpola Rahula offers this perspective:

The idea of self . . . produces harmful thoughts of “me and mine,” selfish desire, craving, attachment, hatred, ill-will, conceit, pride, egoism, and other defilements, impurities, and problems. It is the source of all troubles in the world from personal conflicts to wars between nations. In short, to this false view can be traced all the evil in the world. (1974, p. 51)

Do you agree with Rahula’s statement? Is the idea of self this dangerous? Can you cite instances to support it? Can you cite reasons to disagree with this statement?

Pay special attention to the news for the next few days. To what extent can the “troubles in the world” be attributed to the idea of self?

What about troubles in your own personal life? Reflect on your recent arguments or moments of tension with others. To what extent was your thinking affected by your need to protect your self-concept?

Finally, as an exercise in “self,” try to respond to others today and tomorrow without a sense of self, without protecting an ego. How diffi- cult do you think it will be? What were the results?

IS B

N 1-256-09226-6

25Self-Concept

THINKING ACTIVITY 2.3

Letting Go

If your idea of self can get in the way of your thinking, a good strategy to aid straight thinking is to practice letting go of those ideas you have of your self, whether true or false. Letting go means reducing as much as possible your identification with the constituents that you use to define your self. You can begin this letting go by listing the major ideas you have of your self on the lines below.

Activities you most like to do __________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

People and things you most enjoy __________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

Traits you most admire about yourself __________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

Now imagine that you are fifty years older. Which traits will be gone? Which people and things will have been replaced? Which activities will you no longer be doing? Most likely your idea of self today will not be your idea of self tomorrow, yet you will probably believe that you are the same person (philosophers debate whether a person is actually the same or not over time). Should we, therefore, identify with those traits, activi- ties, and loves to the point that it leads us to conceit, anger, defensive- ness, and an inability to take constructive criticism when those cherished

(continued)

IS B

N 1

-2 56

-0 92

26 -6

26 CHAPTER 2 ■ Personal Barriers

things are threatened? On the other hand, would it be acceptable to believe in something so much that you would die for it? Do you think it would be possible to let go of your idea of self and still act to defend some principle?

EGO DEFENSES

Ego defenses are psychological coping strategies that distort reality in order to protect ourselves from anxiety, guilt, and other bad feelings. Some of the more basic ones that impact on our thinking are denial, projection, and rationalization.

Denial

Experience with an alcoholic population suggests that certain individuals will deny to the point of dying.

—G. FORREST, DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF ALCOHOLISM

When we simply refuse to accept an unpleasant reality, we are using denial. Defining what an unpleasant reality is varies from one person to another. For the alcoholic, it is his or her drinking problem. Thus, because of denial, many alco- holics are unable to think critically about their drinking behavior. Similarly, col- lege students may deny that they are doing poorly in school, that they are lazy, or that their boyfriend or girlfriend really does not love them. Religious people may deny scientific or logical challenges to their faith, and scientists may deny sound evidence that challenges their favorite theory. By keeping these unpleas- ant realities at bay, we protect ourselves from a reality that is unpleasant, but we also inhibit our ability to think objectively about the situation and to make in- telligent decisions for our own and others’ best interests. The following appears to be a case of denial:

No scientist ever has, nor ever will see a star form because the Creator cre- ated all of His stars in the fourth day of the creation week (Genesis 1:14–19). In the Spring of 1992, some scientists claimed to be observing a star form out in the stellar heavens. They used various mathematical equations to come to their conclusion. However, if their conclusion is in direct contradic- tion to what the Bible says, then their conclusion is wrong [emphasis added]. (Martin, 1994, p. 175)

In the above passage, one gets the sense that no matter what the strength of the evidence for the birth of stars, the conclusion will simply be denied. When

THINKING ACTIVITY 2.3 (Continued)

IS B

N 1-256-09226-6

27Ego Defenses

THINK ABOUT IT: What beliefs about yourself, your children, your religion, etc., do you hold so dear that challenges to them might tempt you to deny the unpleasant truth? How about challenges to the truth of your religion? Challenges about the goodness of your child at school? Challenges to your ability to handle drugs? Challenges about the extent to which you have the character traits that make you proud?

our beliefs are already well-grounded, weak, foolish evidence or argument does not deserve attention, as when someone tries to argue for a flat earth. Unfortu- nately, those using denial too conveniently overestimate the strength of their position, as in the example above, and dismiss strong challenges and facts as nothing more than rubbish. The power of the mind to deny reality might be doubted by some; it should not be. It is all too apparent when one considers the steadfast delusions of the mentally ill: some schizophrenics who believe they are is Jesus will, when in the company of other schizophrenics with the same delusion, insist that the others are imposters; anorexics can look in a mirror and see a need to lose weight; and someone with a multiple personality can exhibit a subper- sonality of the opposite sex. If the human mind can achieve these lengths of de- ception, how much easier must it be for it to delude the rest of us with denials of more prosaic things.

Projection

There I see the beam in my own eye as a mote in my brother’s eye. It is right there because I am unconscious of the beam in my own eye.

—CARL JUNG, C. G. JUNG SPEAKING

Projection is the defense mechanism by which we see in others a part of ourselves that we cannot accept and do not recognize. We may believe others are hostile toward us when it is we who are hostile toward them. We may see in others our own incompetence and deceitfulness, which we are unable to accept in our- selves. We may see selfish motives in others, which are really the selfish motives in us that we do not consciously recognize. In short, we see others not as they are, but as we are. Our thinking about ourselves and others is therefore grossly dis- torted when we engage in projection. Like denial, this interferes with our ability to think critically about ourselves, others, and our social situations. Notice in the example below how a man’s perception of others as crazy and desiring to hurt him seems to be a projection of his own inner reality.

IS B

N 1

-2 56

-0 92

26 -6

28 CHAPTER 2 ■ Personal Barriers

INTERVIEWER: Well, how do you feel about all those things they are saying? PATIENT: What do you mean, “feel”? [said with distrust]. They’re crazy.

They want to see me destroyed. INTERVIEWER: Oh, well, that’s awful. It’s scary to have people say crazy things

about you. What would make them do that? PATIENT: They’re jealous of me, that I have my wife; they must be trying

to get her from me. INTERVIEWER: Well, of course, you’re a proud man, and it must be difficult to

have them talking about you like that. Now let’s see if there’s any way we can help you stay on top of things and keep in con- trol. We can both agree that you’re a strong man, and it’s im- portant not to let it weaken you.

PATIENT: Yes. I’m strong. But I’m very worried that her family might make me do something crazy—like want to hurt someone. (Vaillant and Perry, 1985, p. 965; emphasis added)

Rationalization

The easiest person to deceive is one’s self. —LORD LYTTON

Of all the defense mechanisms, rationalization is perhaps the greatest inhibitor of clear thinking. Rationalization is distorted thinking that attempts to justify behavior motivated by self-interest or unacceptable desires. It serves to protect us from bad feelings by, for example, turning selfish motives into honorable ones. For example, a rationalization may have come from the captain of the cruise ship Oceanos, which sank in the Indian Ocean in 1991. When asked why he left his ship in a lifeboat while hundreds of passengers were still on board, he replied that the order to abandon ship applies to everyone, and once the order is given it does not matter when the captain leaves. He also mentioned that he could control rescue operations better from the shore.

In essence, rationalization is lying to ourselves about the real reasons for our behaviors and feelings. It is essential that we believe in this lie in order for it to protect us; if we knew we were lying, it would do us no good. Many of us can recognize the following tax-season rationalization:

I cheat on my taxes because of the way the government spends our money, you know—hundreds of dollars for a plain hammer and thousands of dollars for a toilet seat. It’s our duty as U.S. citizens to put a stop to this nonsense. Maybe if we all held back a little Uncle Sam would get the message.

Rationalization has its roots in psychoanalytic psychology. Ironically, even its founder, Sigmund Freud, may have been guilty of it. He gave several reasons

IS B

N 1-256-09226-6

29Self-Serving Biases

why the proverbial couch, which deters patient-therapist eye contact, enhances therapy, but elsewhere he stated, “I cannot put up with being stared at by other people for eight hours a day (or more)” (cited in Roazen, 1975, p. 123).

A famous, lengthy rationalization is found in Stephen Crane’s The Red Badge of Courage. The Civil War soldier, who abandons his comrades and flees for his life out of sheer terror when an enemy battalion approaches, justifies his actions later:

He [speaking of himself ] had done a good part in saving himself, who was a little piece of the army. He had considered the time, he said, to be one in which it was the duty of every little piece to rescue itself if possible. Later the officers could fit the little pieces together again, and make a battle front. If none of the little pieces were wise enough to save themselves from the flurry of death at such a time, why, then, where would be the army? It was all plain that he pro- ceeded according to very correct and commendable rules . . . He, the enlight- ened man . . . had fled because of his superior perceptions and knowledge. (Crane, 1894/1951, pp. 87–88)

Yes, indeed! As Shakespeare’s Falstaff said, “The better part of valor is dis- cretion” (Henry the Fourth, Part I).

Finally, let’s not forget the rationalizations of the anti-abolitionists, those peo- ple who wholeheartedly supported slavery, including the Fugitive Slave Bill. How many of them, instead of facing the truth of their motivations, that their support resided in enculturated bigotry or the personal economic advantages of free slave labor, convinced themselves that their position was an honorable one, that slavery was in accord with the Law of God, that sending runaway slaves back to their masters was also in accord with the law of God, and that the support of slavery was good for the country’s stability? Preachers read passages from the Bible that apparently support slavery (e.g., Exodus 21:2–8 and 20–21; Leviticus 25:44–46; Ephesians 6:5; Timothy 6:1–2) and delivered their rationalizations in public sermons: “When the slave asks me to stand between him and his master, what does he ask? He asks me to murder a nation’s life; and I will not do it, be- cause I have a conscience—because there is a God” (Craft, 2000, p. 733).

SELF-SERVING BIASES

Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true.

—DEMOSTHENES, THIRD OLYNTHIAC

If our actions are driven by good motives, they do not need to be rational- ized. But actions, even with good motives, can lead us into other thinking dis- tortions if they lead to undesirable consequences, consequences that threaten

IS B

N 1

-2 56

-0 92

26 -6

30 CHAPTER 2 ■ Personal Barriers

our self-esteem. The actions of others can also threaten our self-esteem. Such ego-threatening situations can lead us to cognitive biases called self-serving biases. These are biases in our thinking and perception that protect or elevate our self- esteem. As noted above, we do not always think about and perceive things as they are, for that would often mean looking at ourselves in an unpleasant light. Consequently, most people tend to see what they need to see and what they want to see in order to maintain or strengthen positive feelings about themselves (Maslow, 1954).

One aspect of the self-serving bias is the tendency to take credit for our successes and to blame our failures on external factors (Zuckerman, 1979; Bradley, 1978). For example, a student failing an exam might attribute her failure to an unfair test or an incompetent instructor rather than her poor study habits. And politicians who lose elections are likely to attribute their loss to negative campaigning by their opponent or a lack of funds necessary to get their message across rather than to flaws in their own personality or po- litical perspective. On the other hand, when we get promoted at work or get an A on a test, we are likely to attribute our success to our intelligence, per- severance, and hard work.

Whereas we often attribute our failures to situational factors and our suc- cesses to personal ones, a second aspect of the self-serving bias is the tendency to make opposite attributions when judging the behavior of others that threatens our own self-esteem. When a student competitor in college gets a better grade than we do, we may find it threatening to our self-esteem and attribute the bet- ter grade to luck or some privileged relationship with the instructor. Yet, when others fail, we may look to their character for an explanation and ascribe their failure to their incompetence, ignorance, or laziness.

The tendency to engage in ego defenses and self-serving biases should de- crease as our psychological health increases. Healthy people are more able to own up to the totality of who they are, both positive and negative (Jung, 1969a). When we can truly accept ourselves as we are with our faults—that is, when we can think of ourselves as worthwhile persons in spite of our failings—then we have less need to repress, deny, project, or make misattributions to protect our- selves. As healthier people, we are less threatened by the successes of others and more able to tolerate our own failures; we own up to our mistakes and give credit to others. In sum, we think better for being better.

THINK ABOUT IT: Have you ever made an erroneous attribution for someone else’s behavior? Have you ever been the victim of such an attribution?

IS B

N 1-256-09226-6

31Self-Serving Biases

OTHER ATTRIBUTION ERRORS

Our attributions about our own behaviors as well as the behavior of others are often wrong because they are biased by our need to protect our self- esteem. But they can also go wrong for other reasons. For example, if we saw a young man speeding by in a red convertible with a beautiful lady by his side, we would probably attribute his behavior to immaturity and show- ing off. This is because of a tendency we have to attribute the behavior of others to their personal traits instead of to their situation. Oftentimes these internal attributions are wrong and the situation is the real force behind the behavior. In such instances we have committed the fundamental attribu- tion error. In the example above, the student might be speeding to the hospital because his gorgeous wife is about to deliver a baby.

The actor-observer bias extends the fundamental attribution error one more step by stating that we tend to make internal attributions when ob- serving the behavior of others but situational attributions when assessing our own behavior (except when examining our success). Thus, employees (observers) may attribute a manager’s strict rules to the manager’s rigid per- sonality, whereas the manager (actor) explains the rules as necessary to deal with the stresses and pressures coming from her superiors. On the other hand, a manager (the observer now) may see her unproductive employees as lazy and unmotivated, whereas they (the actors) perceive their unpro- ductive behavior as a natural consequence of working for an insensitive, au- thoritarian personality. The differences in attribution are probably rooted in differences in points of view: the boss is less aware of herself and more aware of the employees, while the employees are focused on the boss and are less focused on themselves. Fortunately, this bias can be minimized by having each side empathize with the other (Regan and Totten, 1975).

SELF-SERVING BIASES?

Self-serving biases are cognitive distortions that put us in a favorable posi- tion. The statements below come from the insurance forms of car-accident victims who were asked to summarize the accident. Are these self-serving biases or just grammatical mistakes?

1. A pedestrian hit me and went under my car. 2. As I approached the intersection a sign suddenly appeared in a place

where no sign had ever appeared before.

(continued)

IS B

N 1

-2 56

-0 92

26 -6

32 CHAPTER 2 ■ Personal Barriers

THINKING ACTIVITY 2.4

Owning Up to Our Dark Side

We have seen how a failure to see and accept ourselves as we are can lead to thinking distortions as we rationalize, project, deny, and use self-serving biases. Therefore, it is worthwhile to look at the dark side of ourselves and accept it as part of who we are. And if we think we don’t have a dark side, we might consider the words of the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1921):

Self knowledge is proverbially rare and difficult. Most men, for example, have in their nature meannesses, vanities, and envies of which they are quite unconscious, though even their best friends can perceive them without any difficulty.

So be honest with yourself and write down those “meannesses, vanities, and envies.” To help you identify those dark elements, which the psychol- ogist Carl Jung called the “shadow,” reflect back on criticisms you have received from others and remember that other people, especially our friends and loved ones, often know us better than we know ourselves. And don’t forget your enemies: “It is an old saying but true: If you wish to learn your faults, listen to what your enemies say” (Eads, 1879, p. 167). Also reflect on how you reacted to that criticism and consider these state- ments by M.-L. von Franz (1964), one of Jung’s students:

If you feel an overwhelming rage coming up in you when a friend reproaches you about a fault, you can be fairly sure that at this point you will find a part of your shadow, of which you are unconscious.

3. My car was legally parked as it backed into the other vehicle. 4. The indirect cause of this accident was a little guy in a small car with

a big mouth. 5. An invisible car came out of nowhere, struck my vehicle, and vanished. 6. The telephone pole was approaching. I was attempting to swerve out

of the way, when it struck my front end. 7. I had been driving for forty years when I fell asleep at the wheel. 8. To avoid hitting the car in front of me, I struck the pedestrian. 9. The pedestrian had no idea which direction to run, so I ran over him.

10. I pulled away from the side of the road, glanced at my mother-in-law, and headed for the embankment.

SELF-SERVING BIASES? (Continued )

(continued)

IS B

N 1-256-09226-6

33The Role of Expectations and Schemata

THINKING ACTIVITY 2.4 (Continued)

It is particularly in contacts with people of the same sex that one stumbles over both one’s own shadow and those of other people.

When an individual makes an attempt to see his shadow, he becomes aware of (and often ashamed of) those qualities and impulses he denies in himself but can plainly see in other people— such things as egotism, mental laziness, and sloppiness; unreal fantasies, schemes, and plots; carelessness and cowardice; inordi- nate love of money and possessions—in short, all the little sins about which he might previously have told himself: “That doesn’t matter; nobody will notice it, and in any case other people do it too.” (pp. 168–69)

So that you don’t walk away from this exercise depressed and full of loathing about yourself, write down ten positive characteristics of your personality also. Then congratulate yourself for taking a small step toward better thinking and a richer life, for “only those who have achieved self- knowledge and are constantly seeking both to enlarge it and apply it in their daily living, are capable of overcoming their automatic reactions and reaching their own ideal limits” (Mumford, 1951, p. 250).

THE ROLE OF EXPECTATIONS AND SCHEMATA

Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868–1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen. Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor’s cup full, and then kept on pouring. The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. “It is overfull. No more will go in!” “Like this cup,” Nan-in said, “you are full of your own opinions and spec- ulations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?”

—N. SENZAKI AND P. REPS, “ZEN STORIES”

Not only do we tend to think about the world according to what we want to see and what we need to see, we tend to think of it in terms of what we expect to see. We tend to perceive and think about others and situations in terms of the ideas we have already formed about them. These ideas are called schemata (plural of schema). Often we distort the truth to make it fit into our existing schema, or we notice only those aspects of others’ behavior or ideas that fit into our existing ideas about them. In other words, we are reluctant to change our perceptions and ideas to accommodate the facts (accommodation); instead, it is easier to fit our observations and thinking into our existing schemata (assimilation). If our

IS B

N 1

-2 56

-0 92

26 -6

34 CHAPTER 2 ■ Personal Barriers

prior experience with someone is that he is extremely selfish and we form an idea of him as “a selfish person,” then we tend to see his current actions as selfish. If he suggests a new policy at work to increase morale and productivity, we wonder about the selfish motives that must be underlying his new policy. Surely he can- not be interested in the well-being of others and the company’s productivity.

Similarly, if a teacher believes that a student is not very bright, frequent questions from that student may be interpreted by the teacher as verification of the student’s ignorance. On the other hand, if the teacher is told that a student is intelligent and highly motivated, the student’s questions may be seen as re- flecting that person’s insight and motivation. Imagine what your reaction would be if you heard that a dictator was freeing some political prisoners and giving millions of dollars to the poor in his country. You would probably either dis- count the information as mere propaganda or question his motives, believing that he was trying to manipulate his people for some reason. His behavior would not likely cause you to change your perception of him from a ruthless dictator to a compassionate benefactor.

A good example of a schema that influences the way we perceive and think is the stereotype—a simplistic, biased view about members of a certain group. We learn stereotypes from a variety of sources. Sometimes we overgeneralize from our limited experience with members of a group. Often we learn our parents’ stereotypes by listening and observing them, and we sometimes absorb stereo- types from our peers and the media. Whatever their source, stereotypes have a powerful effect on our thinking.

It is important to realize that stereotypes are inaccurate. They assume that groups are more homogeneous than they are. For some reason, when it comes to our own group, we see the richness and diversity of its members, but when it comes to our perception of other groups, we assume that their members are all alike. On what basis can we possibly assume so? Certainly, similarities exist among group members but not to the degree that stereotypes imply.

Although stereotypes in particular and schemata in general often distort our thinking, sometimes we do change our views of people and situations when we encounter facts contradicting a particular schema. Some research suggests that this accommodation is most likely to occur when the new information is mod- erately discrepant with our schema (Bochner and Insko, 1966). If an idea is very similar to our existing views, we are likely to minimize the difference and assim- ilate it into our existing schema, thus not modifying our views. Likewise, if the information is highly discrepant, it simply cannot fit into our schema and we reject it. For example, if typical Christians were exposed to arguments that Jesus never existed and that the entire New Testament is a myth, they would find this information very discrepant and would probably reject it without the least con- sideration. On the other hand, information that Jesus was unusually friendly

IS B

N 1-256-09226-6

35Emotional Influences

with a political group whose intent was to overthrow the Romans might simply be assimilated into their schema of Jesus as a spiritual leader, who just happened to appeal to some political groups bent on overthrowing Roman rulers. Little or no change would be made in their concept of Jesus.

Moderately discrepant information, however, is too different to be easily as- similated and yet not so different that it must be rejected. Thus, if we are likely to change our views in the face of evidence, moderately discrepant information will most likely, but not necessarily, lead to that change. Can you imagine any real or fictitious revelation about Jesus that could be considered by most Chris- tians as moderately discrepant with their views?

THINK ABOUT IT: An open mind is essential to critical thinking. But there is no easy recipe for acquiring an open mind, especially regarding prejudice. Negative thoughts toward a minority group may go, but negative feelings often linger on. Those feelings may lead us to continue our negative behaviors and attitudes toward a group.

EMOTIONAL INFLUENCES

Emotions are an important feature of human experience. They are, in part, what separates humans from machines and the lower animals, for machines can compute but they cannot experience joy. And although animals may find themselves attached to others, they do not love them. Emotions give our world color and richness, joy and surprise, but also pain and sorrow. Emotions can affect and inspire thought, said William James, but he also said they can de- stroy it. Later in this book we look at how emotions can inspire thinking, but for now our attention focuses on their inhibiting influence, on their capacity to bury, twist, and fragment the thinking process and take it to the depths of the irrational.

Anger

Why does my violence so silence reason and intelligence? —JEAN RACINE, PHAEDRA

Both Plato and Aristotle believed that anger could be a “potentially constructive ally of reason” (Averill, 1982, p. 85), but both of them also recognized its de- structive influences on rational thought. This destructive influence was apparent

IS B

N 1

-2 56

-0 92

26 -6

36 CHAPTER 2 ■ Personal Barriers

to the Eastern philosophers of that period also. In the Bhagavad Gita (ch II. vs. 63) we read:

From anger arises bewilderment, from bewilderment loss of memory; and from loss of memory, the destruction of intelligence and from the destruction of intelligence he perishes. (Radhakrishnan, 1948, p. 126)

Likewise, the Roman philosopher Seneca saw no value in anger:

No provocation justifies it, no situation permits it, and no benefit is gained by it. Once allowed, anger entirely consumes its possessor and renders dull his capacity for reasoning and sensible action. (Averill, 1982, p. 83)

Certainly anger and reason appear to most people to be the antithesis of each other; where one appears, the other seems to be absent. Anger has destroyed intimacy, thwarted good judgment, motivated senseless killings, inspired nu- merous wars, and probably burned more bridges in the career paths of men and women than any other single force. That’s because it distorts our perception of a situation, colors our ability to think critically about it, and impairs our self-control. As William James put it, “Nothing annihilates an inhibition as irresistibly as anger does it.” (1902, p. 264)

The cause of anger may be a threat to something we hold dear. It may also be due to frustration, which is often caused by the blocking of a goal, or even by stress and hormonal changes in our bodies. No matter what the source, it is im- portant not to make important decisions in the heat of anger, for good thinking does not prevail during such moments. Instead, we want to release the tension caused by the anger and strike out, hurt, or destroy.

The short-term goal of releasing tension can supersede and crush years of careful deliberation and planning as we say or do things we know we should not. The aspiring businesswoman ruins her career by berating her boss for making a poor decision, or a man angry at his fiancée’s selfish behavior castigates her for all her personal faults and breaks off the engagement. Although anger may in- spire great speeches, it often throws thinking in the backseat as our emotions take control.

Earlier we mentioned how previous knowledge, like stereotypes and other schemata, can distort our thinking. Feelings can also affect thinking in a similar way. For example, anger can not only overrule our thinking but also distort it so that we believe that what we are doing is justified and rational. For example, a parent may severely spank a child because of frustration with the child and a need to release anger. The parent may then rationalize the aggression against the child by claiming that such punishment was necessary to teach the child appropriate behavior—in spite of the fact that psychologists have for years been saying that appropriate behavior can be taught by nonviolent methods and that such

IS B

N 1-256-09226-6

37Emotional Influences

spanking can be harmful to the child. The parent does not acknowledge the real motivation for the behavior.

Dealing with Anger

If anger can lead to unthinking behavior or override our better judgment, we need to lessen its impact. We offer five suggestions.

First, do not vent your anger:

The psychological rationales for ventilating anger do not stand up under ex- perimental scrutiny. The weight of the evidence indicates precisely the oppo- site: expressing anger makes you angrier, solidifies an angry attitude, and establishes a hostile habit. If you keep quiet about momentary irritations and distract yourself with pleasant activity until your fury simmers down, chances are you will feel better, and feel better faster, than if you let yourself go in a shouting match. (Tavris, 1982, pp. 143–44)

Besides fueling the original anger, venting anger more often results in guilt, low- ered self-esteem, mild depression, anxiety, embarrassment, and an exacerbation of the original conflict (Tavris, 1982; Averill, 1982). This is not to say that you should stew for days with unabated anger. If the anger does not eventually sub- side, although usually it does, an attempt should be made to calmly talk about the matter. Pick a time when the other person is not angry and will therefore be more likely to listen.

Second, get advice about your chosen course of action from others who are not angry. They may be able to give you a clearer perspective and prevent the some- times disastrous consequences of decisions made under the influence of anger.

Third, become assertive. Anger is sometimes caused by continuous victimiza- tion. Being assertive means standing up for your rights in a self-controlled, nonaggressive manner that diminishes the potential for defensiveness in the other person. Bear in mind, however, that it is irrational to believe that life should al- ways treat us justly. In other words, don’t overdo your assertive behavior.

Fourth, learn to relax and to practice other stress-management strategies. Reducing the stress in your life and practicing relaxation exercises regularly can help you control the frequency of your anger.

Lastly, don’t get angry. This may sound simplistic; however, when you con- sider that anger is rooted in the meaning you give to the events around you, as opposed to the events themselves, it is reasonable to try to alter that initial per- ception and prevent the anger from occurring altogether. Psychologists call this cognitive restructuring or reappraisal. For example, if you perceive that someone is trying to slight you in some way, you might ask yourself if there is another rea- son for his behavior. It might be possible, for example, that he is unaware of the impact his behavior has on you. Empathy, identifying with the position of the

IS B

N 1

-2 56

-0 92

26 -6

38 CHAPTER 2 ■ Personal Barriers

other person, sometimes helps to make these reappraisals. Or you might want to put things in proper perspective. For example, if you were counting on someone to mow the lawn today and he did not, you can ask yourself how important it is that the lawn be mowed today as opposed to tomorrow. Even if the lawn mow- ing were to be skipped for a week, what’s the worst that would happen?

THINK ABOUT IT: Aristotle said, “But to be angry with the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right way—this is not easy” (Nichomachean Ethics). This statement suggests that there is a place for anger. Even Jesus got angry: “And making a kind of whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, also the sheep and oxen, and he poured out the money of the changers and overturned the tables” (John 2:15). In what situations, if any, do you think anger is an appropriate response? What would be the right way to express it? Be careful that you do not rationalize your past behavior.

Passion

Be it what it will, the ruling passion conquers reason still. —ALEXANDER POPE, MORAL ESSAYS

William Penn defined passion as “a sort of fever in the mind, which ever leaves us weaker than it found us” (1906, p. 57). We define it more prosaically as the intense love of some person, thing, situation, or value to a level that inhibits objective rea- soning about its object. Most people have experienced it in romantic love, whence the statement “Love is blind.” In love or wherever it is found, passion is able to un- seat reason, and rational thought becomes “rationalized thought.”

How many unwanted pregnancies occur because a couple has surrendered to “the heat of passion”? How many lives have been lost because of a passion for the euphoria of drugs? And how many good relationships have been destroyed by misplaced passion felt for someone else? When we love a person or thing in- tensely, we typically do not see the dark side; we tend only to justify our desires. Romantic lovers, for example, idealize their partners and often find them with- out faults. Contrary opinions from friends and family are seen as motivated by jealousy or born of misunderstanding.

Our passion may be our religion, our food, or our drugs. It may be televi- sion, a person, a home, or a material object. Whatever the source, we tend to im- merse ourselves in our object of passion, revel in its various qualities, and only later, if ever, find our reason again. Perhaps we can take the advice of the Cistercian

IS B

N 1-256-09226-6

39Emotional Influences

monks (Trappists) who suggest developing a humble awareness of passion’s hold on our reason: “Cistercian humility makes you very circumspect in your actions when you know your will to be weak and wounded and your intellect to be of- ten blinded by selfishness and passion.” (Merton, 1949, p. 23)

THINK ABOUT IT: For what people, things, or ideas do you have such passion that you may not be able to think clearly about them?

Depression

When our object of passion is lost, we may find ourselves dysphoric or seriously depressed. This response is echoed in the story of Romeo and Juliet and the nu- merous young and old alike every year who commit suicide out of a deep sense of loss. But the loss of something dear to us is only one cause of depression. Other causes include biochemical factors, severe stress, a sense of hopelessness, lack of sunlight, and illogical thinking.

Of particular interest to us are the effects that depression may have on thinking. Several studies on depression support the idea that irrational cogni- tions are correlated with depression. (For our purposes “irrational” and “illogi- cal” are the same, although some make a distinction here.) However, some disagreement exists about whether unhealthy cognitions cause depression, or whether depression causes unhealthy cognitive styles. Although we can find re- search supporting both hypotheses, the conclusion from a longitudinal study on this topic, using a sample of 998 people, is that “people change their expectan- cies and subscribe to irrational beliefs as a result of being depressed,” and not the other way around (Lewinsohn et al., 1981). Other studies (e.g., Miranda and Persons, 1988) also give support to the idea that mood can influence thinking.

The kinds of irrational thinking that often accompany depression include a tendency to see or exaggerate the negative side of a situation and to diminish the positive:

A depressed patient observed that a faucet was leaking in a bathroom, that the pilot light was out in the stove, and that one of the steps in the staircase was broken. He concluded, “The whole house is deteriorating.” The house was in excellent condition (except for these minor problems); he had made a massive overgeneralization. (Beck, 1976, p. 219)

To depressed people the cup is half empty, not half full. Depressed people also tend to minimize their successes and maximize their failures by attributing their successes to external causes and their failures to internal causes. In general,

IS B

N 1

-2 56

-0 92

26 -6

40 CHAPTER 2 ■ Personal Barriers

depressives are more critical of themselves than they should be and see the world and their future in a more negative light than nondepressives do. That is why suicide prevention centers must often help suicidal people think of alternatives to their problems. Their ability to see their situations clearly is often impaired by their negative mood. As Schneidman (1985) points out, suicidal people, most of whom are depressed, may see only two alternatives to their dilemma: suicide or some unrealistic solution.

Depression in various degrees is so prevalent that it is often called the common cold of mental illness. Ten percent of college students, for example, exhibit moderate depression (Craighead et. al, 1984). Mild depression may be much more common, and even mild depression can negatively color our thinking.

Dealing with Depression

Serious depression requires serious psychological or medical intervention by a pro- fessional. But if we are simply suffering from “the blues,” we must realize that our thinking about ourselves and about life in general is probably colored somewhat by our negative mood. If possible, we should put off major decisions until our mood lifts or talk to others to help us explore alternative courses of action and achieve better insight into our situation. If we have not already done so, we should exercise; exercise can lessen depression (Stein and Motta, 1992; Dunn et al., 2005). In the meantime, we can try to identify the causes of our depression and take action to correct them or, if necessary, seek advice on handling those causes.

Sometimes the cause of our depression is our own irrational thinking. For example, if we encounter a person who does not like us, we may become ex- tremely upset about it and spend many hours wondering what it is about us that is difficult to like, and we may even suffer insomnia worrying about it. We may also strive excessively to please that person. Through our own reflection or through the help of others we may come to see the irrational assumption under- lying our unhealthy reaction: “Everyone should like me because I’m a nice person.” If we think carefully about this assumption for a moment we can see there is no truth to this, for plenty of nice people, including Jesus, Gandhi, and Mother Teresa, had enemies. No matter how nice we may be, some people will invariably misunderstand us or project on us their own inadequacies. Similarly, students who feel lowered self-worth when they receive a disappointing grade are operating under a different irrational belief: “My worth depends upon my achievements.” They need only remind themselves that many psychopaths have done well on college exams to realize the error in this kind of thinking.

Cognitive psychologists help people with dysfunctional thinking to see the irrational nature of their thoughts and then suggest rational replacements. Our friends and colleagues may help us do the same, and we can even learn to do this ourselves. In the example below we can see how one cognitive psychologist

IS B

N 1-256-09226-6

41Emotional Influences

challenged the distorted thinking of a student who was fearful of giving a speech (sound familiar?).

PATIENT: I have to give a talk before my class tomorrow and I’m scared stiff. THERAPIST: What are you afraid of?

PATIENT: I think I’ll make a fool of myself. THERAPIST: Suppose you do make a fool of yourself. Why is that so bad?

PATIENT: I’ll never live it down. THERAPIST: “Never” is a long time. . . . Now look here, suppose they

ridicule you. Can you die from it? PATIENT: Of course not.

THERAPIST: Suppose they decide you’re the worst public speaker that ever lived. . . . Will this ruin your future career?

PATIENT: No. . . . But it would be nice if I could be a good speaker. THERAPIST: Sure it would be nice. But if you flubbed it, would your par-

ents or your wife disown you? PATIENT: No. . . . They’re very sympathetic.

THERAPIST: Well, what would be so awful about it? PATIENT: I would feel pretty bad.

THERAPIST: For how long? PATIENT: For about a day or two.

THERAPIST: And then what? PATIENT: Then I’d be O.K. (Beck, 1976, p. 250)

The resolution of depression is not always easy. Fortunately, most people do not become severely depressed. And most who are mildly to moderately de- pressed, unless it is a major personality characteristic, will find their depression eventually lifting. In the meantime, we must be careful about the thoughts and decisions we make while depressed and remind ourselves of the cognitive distor- tions we may be experiencing.

THINKING ACTIVITY 2.5

Five Thinking Errors

The five thinking errors below range in severity and frequency and can be found in all of us from time to time. They are particularly likely to appear in times of emotional strain. As you read them, think about instances in which these thinking errors have distorted your thinking, and how these errors have affected your significant others.

(continued)

IS B

N 1

-2 56

-0 92

26 -6

42 CHAPTER 2 ■ Personal Barriers

THINKING ACTIVITY 2.5 (Continued)

1. Personalization: egocentric thinking in which the world is seen to revolve unduly around the individual. A person might take responsi- bility for a disappointing picnic at the lake by saying, “I should have known it would probably rain today; it rains a lot in May. I should have waited until June.” Or upon walking by a woman in a store with an angry look on her face, a person wonders, “Why is she mad at me? What did I do?”

2. Polarized thinking: also called “black and white thinking” or “di- chotomous thinking,” categorizing complexities into one extreme or the other (later we examine it as the “either/or fallacy”). For example, a depressed person may see himself only in a negative light and fail to see the good characteristics he has. Or if a person is not extremely suc- cessful, she might consider herself a loser. A man might say, “People either like me, or they hate me,” not realizing that people can also have mixed feelings about him. A person with a borderline personality disorder often sees people as either all good or all bad. Politics is often riddled with this kind of thinking when we assess the merits of a bill, candidate, or foreign policy.

3. Overgeneralization: drawing broad conclusions on the basis of a single incident. A student fails one course at college and then believes she is a failure and will not be able to earn her degree. Or after receiving a reprimand duly or unduly deserved, a person thinks, “Everyone hates me.” Or after his girlfriend breaks up with him, a man thinks, “I’m never going to find someone who will love me.”

4. Catastrophizing: a common characteristic of anxious people in which they consider the worst possible outcome of an event. A young man announces to his mother that he is getting married, and she immedi- ately thinks about the likelihood of a deformed baby or even a divorce in his future. A young woman going out on a blind date expects it to be a real disappointment. Or a father, upon hearing that his son intends to major in philosophy, imagines his son permanently unemployed and expects him to be a constant financial burden.

5. Selective abstraction: focusing on one detail of a situation and ignor- ing the larger picture. For example, an instructor receives a very favor- able evaluation from 90 percent of her students but dwells instead on the unfavorable comments from the few. Or a football player, after an overall excellent performance, curses himself for the one pass that he should have caught (Beck, 1976).

IS B

Discussion Question Regarding Substance Abuse And Assessing Forensic Psychology

December 2, 2022/in Uncategorized /by SK

Discussion Question Regarding Substance Abuse And Assessing Forensic Psychology

I need help with a discussion question in my Assessing Forensic Psychology Masters class. It needs to be 500 words and in APA format. If you think you can help me please let me know, I have posted the question below…

To prepare for this Discussion:

• Review the online report, “Principles of Drug Abuse Treatment for Criminal Justice Populations: A Research-Based Guide” by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Reflect on the principles of treating drug and alcohol abuse and addiction in a correctional facility, as well as on the role of assessments in the treatment of inmates with chemical dependency and the impact that poor assessments and insufficient treatment may have on the health and recovery of inmates. https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug-abuse-treatment-criminal-justice-populations/principles

• Select a sub-population of inmates who might be prone to chemical use and dependency and reflect on their specific needs.

• Review the course document, “Substance Abuse Assessment Instruments.” Consider the type of assessment instrument you might use to help evaluate the level of chemical dependency and treatment needs for the sub-population you selected.

• Select two assessment instruments from the list that you think might best help assess the sub-population you selected. Research the instruments either in your course text or in the Mental Measurements Yearbook database. Consider their reliability, validity, construction, and the strengths and limitations of each when applied to the specific sub-population.

With these thoughts in mind:

Post by Day 4 a brief description of the sub-population of inmates for whom you selected assessment instruments. Then, describe the two assessment instruments you selected, including any normative data and data on their reliability and validity. Explain how the instruments might be used to assess substance abuse and addiction for the sub-population you described. Finally, analyze their strengths and weaknesses when used to assess this sub-population.

FPSY 6125

Assessment in Forensic Psychology Settings

Week 10

Substance Abuse Assessment Instruments

Personality Assessment Inventory

Personality Assessment Inventory – Adolescent

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory – 2

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory – Adolescent

Adapted Short Michigan Alcoholism

Addiction Admission Scale (AAS)

Addiction Potential Scale (APS)

Adolescent Alcohol Involvement Scale

Adolescent Diagnostic Interview (ADI)

Adolescent Drinking Index (ADI)

Alcohol Clinical Index (ACI)

Alcohol Dependence Scale (ADS)

Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire (AEQ)

Alcohol Expectancy Adolescent (AEQ-A)

Alcohol Timeline Follow Back (TLFB)

Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test

Alcohol Use Inventory (AUI)

Brief MAST

Brown Peterson Recovery Progress

Co-dependency Inventory (CODI)

Collateral Interview Form (CIF)

College Alcohol Problem Scale (CAPS)

Common Alcohol Logistic Scale (CAL) Current Thoughts Questionnaire

Complaints Checklist

Chemical Dependency Assessment Profile

Circumstances, Motivation, and Readiness

Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment

Composite International Diagnostic

Composite Quantity Frequency (QF) Index

Computerized Lifestyle Assessment

Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS-IV)

Drinking Expectancy Questionnaire (DEQ)

Drinking Problems Index (DPI)

Drinking Refusal Self-Efficacy

Drinking Restraint Scale (DRS)

Drinking Self-Monitoring Log (DSML)

Drug Use Screening Inventory (DUSI)

Family Tree Questionnaire (FTQ)

Follow-up Drinker Profile (FPD)

Inventory of Drinking Situations (IDS)

Lifetime Drinking History (LDH)

Million Clinical Multiaxial Inventory II

Munich Alcoholism Test (MALT)

Negative Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire

Obsessive Compulsive Drinking Scale

Personal Experience Inventory (PEI)

Personal Experience Screening

Problem Situation Inventory (PSI)

Psychiatric Research Interview for Substance & Mental Disorders (PRISM)

Quantity Frequency Methods (QF)

Readiness to Change Questionnaire (RTCQ)

Recovery Attitude and Treatment Evaluator (RAATE)

Clinical Evaluator (CE) and Questionnaire I (QI)

Restrained Drinking Scale (RDS)

Self-Administered Alcoholism Screening Test (SAAST)

Semi-Structured Assessment for the Genetics of Alcoholism (SSAGA-II)

Severity of Alcohol Dependence Questionnaire (SADQ)

Short Alcohol Dependence Data (SADD)

Situational Confidence Questionnaire (SCQ)

Steps Questionnaire

Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI)

Substance Use Disorders Diagnostic Schedule (SUDDS)

T-ACE

Teen-Addiction Severity Index (T-ASI)

Veterans Alcoholism Screening Text (VAST)

Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale – Modified (Y-BOCS-hd)

Young Alcohol Problems Screening Test (YAAPST)

CASAA: Center on Alcoholism, Substance Abuse, and Addictions

Addiction Severity Index (ASI)

Adolescent Drug Involvement Scale (ADIS)

Alcohol Abstinence Self-Efficacy Scale (AASE)

Alcohol Effects Questionnaire (AQS)

Alcohol Efficacy Scale

Alcohol Impression Scale – FU

Alcohol Use Disorders and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule (AUDADIS)

Alcohol-Specific Role Play Test

AWARE Questionnaire (Revised form)

Barriers Questionnaire-Alcohol

Barriers Questionnaire-Drugs

Beck Codependence Assessment Scale (BCAS)

Brief Drinker Profile – Interview Booklet

CAGE published in the American Journal of Psychiatry Co-dependency Inventory (CODI)

Collateral Interview Form – Interview booklet

Collateral Interview on Drinking (90-AC)

Collateral Interview on Drinking (90-ACS)

Collateral Interview on Drug Use (90-DC)

College Alcohol Problem Scale (CAPS)

Common Alcohol Logistic Scale (CAL)

Current Thoughts Questionnaire Complaints Checklist

Comprehensive Drinker Profile – Manual Supplement Comprehensive Drinker Profile (CDP)

Confidential Information Form – Locators

Current Thoughts Questionnaire

Demographics Follow-up – English

Demographics Follow-up – Spanish

Demographic Interview 2.2 – English

Demographic Interview 2.2 – Spanish

Denial Rating Scale Decision Tree

Drinker Inventory of Consequences (DrlnC)

Drinking Assessment Interview – Intake (90-AI)

Drinking Related Internal-External Locus of Control Scale (DRIE)

Drug and Alcohol Problem Quick Screen (DAP)

Drug Efficacy Scale

Drug Use Assessment (Follow-up) (90-DF)

Drug Use Assessment (Intake) (90-DI)

Effectiveness of Coping Behaviors Inventory (BCI)

Family History Interview 2.0

Family History Questionnaire

Follow-up Interview Assessment of Drinking and Related Behaviors (90-AF)

General AA Tools of Recovery (GAATOR 2.1)

How I See My Drug Use

Impaired Control Scales

Inconvenience Review Checklist

Inventory of Drug Consequences (InDUC-2L)

Lifetime Treatment History Interview

Marin Short Scale

McAndrew Alcoholism Scale

Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (MAST)

Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test for Fathers & Mothers (F-SMAST & M-SMAST)

Oetting and Beauvais Questionnaire

Offender Profile Index

Perceived Benefit of Drinking Scale

Personal Behavior Scale

Personal Control Scale

Personal Feedback Report

Personal Values – Card Sorts

Personal Values Record Form

POSIT (Program Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers)

QFV-30 Questionnaire

QFV-90 Questionnaire

Quick Drinking Assessment Interview (90-AQ)

Readiness Ruler

Reasons for Drinking Questionnaire

Relationship Happiness Scale

Religious Practices and Beliefs (RPB) English

Religious Practices and Beliefs (RPB) Spanish

Risk Assessment Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index (RAPI)

SADD (Short-Form Alcohol Dependence Data Questionnaire

SADQ

Self-Evaluation of Drug Use

Short Inventory of Problems (SIP)

SOCRATES Scoring Form (Version 7.0)

Personal Drinking Questionnaire – English (SOCRATES 7A)

Personal Drinking Questionnaire – English (SOCRATES 7AS)

Personal Drinking Questionnaire – English (SOCRATES 7A-SO-M)

Personal Drug Questionnaire (SOCRATES 7D)

Personal Drug Questionnaire (SOCRATES 7D-SO-F)

SOCRATES – Scoring Form (Version 8.0)

SOCRATES Profile Sheet (19-item Version 8A)

Personal Drinking Questionnaire – English (SOCRATES 8A)

Personal Drug Use Questionnaire (SOCRATES 8D)

SOCRATES – Scoring Sheet (8D)

Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Scale (SOCRATES)

Subject Telephone Assessment of Drinking and Related Behaviors (90-AT)

Subjective Experience Questionnaire (SEQ-2A) – Alcohol

Subjective Experience Questionnaire (SEQ-2D) – Drug

Substance Abuse Screening Instrument

Temptation and Restraint Inventory

Title Cards (Drinker Types, etc.)

Treatment Services Review

TWEAK

Twelve-Step Participation Questionnaire (TSPQ-21)

Understanding of Alcoholism Scale

Inventory of Rhode Island Change Assessment (URICA)

What I Got From Treatment

What I Want From Treatment

Your Work Place (YWP)

Substance Abuse Relapse Assessment

Essay” section entitled, “The Happiness of Pursuit

December 2, 2022/in Uncategorized /by SK

General: Read the article listed in the “Essay” section entitled, “The Happiness of Pursuit.” After viewing each question, go back into the article and isolate the questions and reread the article looking for answers to the specific questions. Write a 65 word minimum essay to each question. Responses can be as long as you think is necessary. A minimum word response (65 words) on each question is usually correlated with no better grade than a “5.” Use standard written English in your response to each question. question 1)Identify three research methods used to accumulate the data which served as the basis for this article. Name one strength and weakness associated with each research method.question2) Draw three conclusions that can be deduced from the graphs or charts presented in the article. Question 3) In the study done by Lieberman & Morelli, what were the physiological and psychological processes involved in the study.� Elaborate fully on the physiological and psychological processes by providing ample description and details.question 4) In the quote by Morelli, “Being distracted reduces our empathy for others and blunts responses in the brain,” what are three implications of this quote for civic engagement.�Question 5) Grammar will be evaluated based on the following areas: subject/verb agreement; appropriate verb tense; fragments (suject or verb missing from the sentence); run-on sentences (two sentences joined together incorrectly without a comma and/or a coordinating conjunction (FANBOYS); comma splice (two sentences joined together incorrectly with only a comma).� Syntax is defined as the creation of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language.
: General: Read the article listed in the “Essay” section entitled, “The Happiness of Pursuit.” After viewing each question, go back into the article and isolate the questions and reread the article looking for answers to the specific questions. Write a 65 word minimum essay to each question. Responses can be as long as you think is necessary. A minimum word response (65 words) on each question is usually correlated with no better grade than a “5.” Use standard written English in your response to each question. Question 1) Identify three research methods used to accumulate the data which served as the basis for this article.� Name one strength and weakness associated with each research method.Question 2)Draw three conclusions that can be deduced from the graphs or charts presented in the article. Question 3) In the study done by Lieberman & Morelli, what were the physiological and psychological processes involved in the study.� Elaborate fully on the physiological and psychological processes by providing ample description and details.question 4) In the quote by Morelli, “Being distracted reduces our empathy for others and blunts responses in the brain,” what are three implications of this quote for civic engagement.�Question 5) Grammar will be evaluated based on the following areas: subject/verb agreement; appropriate verb tense; fragments (suject or verb missing from the sentence); run-on sentences (two sentences joined together incorrectly without a comma and/or a coordinating conjunction (FANBOYS); comma splice (two sentences joined together incorrectly with only a comma).� Syntax is defined as the creation of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language.

Select a neurological, psychological, or neurodevelopmental disorder.

Sensory Perceptions Assignment

Discussion Question Regarding Substance Abuse And Assessing Forensic Psychology

Discussion Question Regarding Substance Abuse And Assessing Forensic Psychology

Essay” section entitled, “The Happiness of Pursuit

Experience

Our mission

Latest Posts

Talk to us...