What is a person?

Next week I will be "defending" my Personal Theory of Counseling paper. Defending is in quotes because it's not a thesis. I have been working on the six-page monstrosity for a year and a half though. You can see some of the evolution of this section (progress?) by checking out a similar post I wrote at Mormon Matters last year. If anything this will give you all some insight into my view of earthlings (self included, of course!).



Here is my first section, on what a person is.

I. Nature of the Person
All human beings have individual minds, which vary in temperament and are capable of independent thought and action. These minds are called intelligences, and are eternal and without a beginning. In a natural yet mysterious process our Heavenly Father and Mother gathered these intelligences and combined them with their nature in embryonic form, creating our spirits. This nature includes a basic goodness and the ability to grow and become perfect like them. Our spirit enters our physical body when we are born.

Human Beings:
1. Seek out safety and exploration.
2. Are growth-oriented.
3. Have free will.
4. Are born with heredity from their biological family.
5. Experience happenstance.
6. Have meta-cognitive and meta-emotional capabilities.
7. Seek out structure and values.
8. Get stuck in habitual ways of regulating emotions and managing stress.
9. Are able to create meaning.
10. Have the ability to forgive others and repair relationships.

What do you think? Anything not make sense? What would you add (especially to the numbered section, as there are obviously going to be different views on the opening paragraph)?

Graduation is Saturday!!!

New Group Blog: LDS Psychology

I have joined a group blog, ldspsychology.com, and will be posting there in the near future! It's just getting started, but if it fits your demographic and/or you are interested, check it out.

Your Brain and Sex

...was the topic of a great presentation I went to today. Granted, when you have a choice between "Your Brain and Sex" or "Ethics in Counseling Management" the choice is clear.

Some highlights:

• Marriage counseling is basically trauma work. "People say marriage counseling doesn't work, but statistics aren't very good in trauma surgery either." This is yet another case for PREVENTION! Work on your marriage before you need counseling.
• Addicts, at a basic level, are addicted to dopamine. The presenter opined that "orgasm is the largest naturally occurring rush of dopamine. The initial heroin high is similar to a two-minute sustained orgasm... now I don't want anybody running out looking for heroin!"
• Often women are blamed (or blame themselves) for a lower sex drive, and may be diagnosed with low sexual desire, but "How can you diagnose someone with decreased desire, when there’s not much there that is worth desiring?”
• People get caught in the "Dopamine/Prolactin Rollercoaster" which occurs when a desire for a new partner increases dopamine, which can begin an addictive cycle of increasing amounts of dopamine followed by bursts of prolactin.
• The "Coolidge Effect" - New sexual stimuli creates a quick fix that may start the cycle over again. More types or more frequency of sex for couples may actually make things worse in the long term. Variety to deal with sexual lulls are not enough. Couples need to know how to deepen their intimacy and bonding (which is associated with Oxytocin). Oxytocin facilitates stability in the desire/orgasm/resolution cycle shown below. This effect also suggests that moving quickly into a sexual relationship may result in a faster dissolution of the relationship.
• People often interpret the dopamine rush with a new person as "there's something here" when there is really not. The presenter suggested that people should interpret is as "I need to do something more in my own relationship."
• Regarding sex ed, if we are just teaching abstinence, or just that sex is bad, we may actually make the problem worse! When something is taboo it becomes more biologically enticing. He suggests that we teach our children what is happening with their bodies, and encourage them to find other ways of getting dopamine that involve bonding and commitment, such as through sports.

Mistakes Were Made (but not by me)

Mistakes Were Made (but not by me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson

rating: 5 of 5 stars

This was the best book I have read in the last few years. Highly recommended. It was so informative and engaging that I think I wore out my welcome reading it out loud to anyone who was nearby.

Written by two social psychologists and based on years of research, it provides a fascinating overview of cognitive dissonance, and how it applies to prejudice, memory, law, marriage, and war. The most chilling point is how we are all subject to dealing with dissonance (usually in self-justifying ways), what we think we know or remember is probably not the case (regardless of which side we're on), and most of our leaders and public figures shirk responsibility for their mistakes.

A few highlights:

• Reasoning areas of the brain "virtually shut down" when we are confronted with dissonant information, and emotion circuits light up when consonance is restored. Basically, this shows that there is a neurological basis for the fact that once we make up our minds, it is pretty hard to change them.
  
• Naïve realism - the "inescapable conviction" that we all have, that we see things as they really are. If someone has a different opinion they obviously aren't seeing things clearly.
  
• Being "absolutely, positively sure" a memory is correct does not mean it is. We can have vivid false memories full of emotion and detail. People can recover memories of abuse, which is shown to be dubious, and even experience alien abduction without it actually happening. Basically, we can have experiences that we think are real, especially in the past... yet they never happened. Without some outside confirming source, we cannot trust our memories too much.
  
• Parent blaming - a convenient form of self-justification; it allows people to live with regrets or mistakes because all the mistakes were made "by them."
  
• Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have been guilty of self-justification and failure to admit their mistakes. The last president to clearly admit to a major mistake was John F. Kennedy. The two presidents to use the phrase "mistakes were made" the most were Richard Nixon (of course) and Ronald Reagan. What is so insidious about the phrase (which Clinton even joked about using so much) is that it is a complete avoidance of responsibility.
  
• Finally, resolving dissonance is not completely bad, and does serve to preserve our beliefs, confidence, and self-esteem. However, it also gets us into trouble. Hence, the authors suggest that it is possible to remain committed to a religion, political party, or partner, yet understand that "it is not disloyal to disagree with actions or policies" that one believes is inappropriate, misguided, or immoral.
  

May we all recognize when we are feeling dissonance, and rather than justify our actions or those of religious or political leaders, and stand up for what we believe. We do not disown a best friend when they do something we disagree with. But that does not mean we have to agree with them. "A friend is still a friend, and a mistake is still a mistake." May we all learn to resolve dissonance in healthy ways when possible, and when it is not possible, learn to sit with it.

Read this book! It is not very long, is very engaging, and you will learn a LOT about yourself and society.

There is also an NPR podcast on this book and cognitive dissonance: Why It's Hard to Admit Being Wrong.

''Sin as springing from deep and unmet needs on the part of the sinner''

I know I said there weren´t going to be any posts until next week, but I recently read this quote from Spencer W. Kimball, and thought it was fantastic. Plus, it fits well into my personal theory of counseling.

“Jesus saw sin as wrong but also was able to see sin as springing from deep and unmet needs on the part of the sinner. This permitted him to condemn the sin without condemning the individual. We can show forth our love for others even when we are called upon to correct them. We need to be able to look deeply enough into the lives of others to see the basic causes for their failures and shortcomings.”

I would like to write more about what I believe `sin´ is, but that will have to wait. For now, I will just say that I believe sin is anything that slows or halts our progression. We all sin, it is part of life. What matters is our ability or effort in continuing on, in repairing relationships, and not giving up on the ultimate task of life, that of personal growth in ourselves and others. I think it is important to reframe the stigma of the word 'sin' into a conceptualization that is something that is a part of our lives, something that we need not loathe ourselves over, but rather rejoice that we have the opportunity to live and love and repair and even grow sometimes even though it can be painful.

Some existential questions...

"Death is the condition that makes it possible for us to live life in an authentic fashion." ~Irvin Yalom, M.D.

• How do you feel about the quality of your life?
  
• How would you answer if you knew you were about to die?

Piled higher & Deeper

Applying to PhD programs in the next few months (Clinical Psychology, unless otherwise noted). Possibly ordered in terms of preference:

1. Utah
2. North Carolina
   
3. UCLA
4. Utah State - Combined Clinical, Counseling & School Psychology
5. Arkansas
6. University of Nevada-Reno
7. UC Santa Barbara - Combined Clinical, Counseling, & School Psychology
8. BYU
9. Indiana - Counseling Psychology
10. Purdue - Counseling Psychology
11. Nebraska - JD/PhD (Law & Clinical Psychology)

Wow, 'UCLA, really?' you say? After three months of non-stop vocab study and attempting to learn some math, I actually did pretty well on the GRE (entrance exam) -- much better than I thought I was going to do. I Improved from 50th percentile on the verbal section (from 2 years ago) to 95th. I was so shocked when I got my score that my hands were shaking and I felt light-headed on the way home.

Career Path(s)

I had an assignment in a career counseling class to write about my career path. Here goes...

When I was a child I was sure I wanted to be a paleontologist. I loved dinosaurs and everything about them. I collected books and rubber dinosaur figures, and even remember doing some sort of poster presentation on dinosaurs for my family. I do not know how I lost interest... maybe when I first saw paleontologists on TV digging in the desert. I also wanted to play in the NBA, but that dream was lost after a friend told me only one out of 400,000 or so basketball playing kids makes it that far. My career desires then logically moved on to “eventually taking over my father’s company.”

This lasted until middle school, when I realized that I did not have much interest in what he does, which includes spraying Teflon-like coatings on steel tanks (not the military variety), traveling two to three times a week, and keeping the peace between shop employees. His work (as well as my mother’s, who works with him) has had a lot of influence on my own path, however. It has taught me the necessary hard work and daily grind of providing for one’s family. The most important thing I learned from my parents career-wise is all the good that can be done if you're willing to share.


In high school I took an AP psych class. I learned there that I loved certain topics (such as social and personality psychology), and was completely bored out of my mind by others (cognitive and neuropsychology). In terms of the topics that I was interested in, I was pretty sure I wanted to study psychology in college.

Before college I spent two years as a volunteer missionary for the church in Japan. During that time I learned about the success many former missionaries had as international lawyers. This is what first sparked my interest in law. As a missionary I also gained confidence in speaking to people I did not know, more desire to help those in need, and learned how to work hard even when I did not feel like it.

Soon after returning home from Japan, while driving up a canyon to a snowboarding class, I listened to a tape of John Gottman talking about marriage that my older sister had given my parents. I was completely fascinated by it. While I loved the topic of marriage, I did not think of it in terms of a career at the time. Later on I also took some international law classes while doing a study abroad program. I got married soon after that, and began to think seriously about how to balance supporting a family with having a career that I enjoyed as well as one that contributed to society and to individuals.

With all this in mind, near the end of my undergraduate career I applied to law school. I also applied to a Master’s program in Japanese (which I got accepted to, but they did not offer the money that was mentioned in the application, so I turned them down.) I also applied to a counseling program. My sister had graduated from the same program here a few years earlier. On top of that, my aunt (who teaches in the program) made it sound really great. And that's where I am now. : )

The Fundamental Attribution Error (and possible diagnosis for the bird)

I was pulling out of a restaurant parking lot today when a person drove up who was trying to enter the parking lot. Yeah, I was there first, but I was also leaving out the "entry only" way (unwittingly). Apparently she wasn't too happy because I got the authoritative flip-off.

This is like a regular flip off, except at least three of the following criteria must be met:

1. One's body must turn sharply prior to performing the flip-off.
   
2. Must be done with visible aggression towards the receiving person(s).
   
3. Must be accompanied by unusual or angst-ridden facial expressions.
   
4. Performance of the flip-off must cause clinically significant distress in either the doer or the receiver.
5. Must not be due to a general medical condition, such as a migraine headache, acute prostatitis, or obesity.
6. Must not be better accounted for by another mental disorder, such as Schizophrenia, disorganized type.
7. If done from a vehicle, must not be due to marked clinical distress caused by driving a partially wrecked car, such as one with the driver's side rear-view mirror nearly falling off.

After the incident the driver sped by, attempted a donut, and was finally able to enter the parking lot and eat her carne in peace, hopefully.

Now for the attribution error.

The Fundamental Attribution Error is a psychological principle that says when we do something good, we attribute it to our person.  When we do something bad, we attribute it to chance, bad luck, or environmental factors.  When an other does something good, we attribute it do chance or environment, and when they do something bad we attribute it to their person.

So, I am happy to report that after receiving said obscene gesture, I thought to myself, "maybe she's upset about her car being dented, or maybe she's really hungry, or perhaps she suffers from an uncontrollable tic" - rather than thinking, "What a jerk," which I would have thought if I had not of had the lesson on the attribution error three days ago.

John Gottman & Researched-Based Parenting

Recently I had the chance to see John Gottman give a speech on "Raising an Emotionally Intelligent Child." Gottman has long been one of my professional and personal heroes due to his extensive research on marital relationships and parenting. This is not Dr. Laura, Dr. Phil, or John Gray here folks. Gottman's stuff is based on decades of research. He also doesn't run these seminars to try to sell his books--not once did he mention them (but I will, because they have made a huge impact on how I approach my marital relationship).

He said that we need to treat our spouses and children like we treat friends and guests. He gave a couple of painfully obvious (and funny) examples of this: if a guest spilled wine on your carpet, you would not tear into him about how clumsy he was and how he needed to be more careful, you would offer him another glass. Or, if she forgot her umbrella, you wouldn't chase after her yelling about how she is so forgetful, you would say, "Hey, you forgot your umbrella." In short, we tend to overlook the flaws in our friends, but not our spouses. We need to be courteous and kind with our spouses and children, something we already know how to do with guests. It does not mean we shouldn't teach our children, just that they have a big sense of dignity and we should treat them respectfully.

The last point I really liked was that there are two types of parents--the first ("dismissing") will give the child a ton of information, wait until the child does something wrong, and then point out their mistakes. The other type ("Emotion Coaching" - what he recommends) gives the child just a little information, and then waits for the child to do something right, and points it out. Basically, he asserts that "constructive criticism" does not work. According to research (which he sited numerous times for pretty much everything he said, pointing out mistakes tends to increase them.

In short, his "Emotion Coaching" of children is summed up in these steps:

1. Notice the child's emotion.
2. Take on the attitude that the emotion is an opportunity for teaching and intimacy.
3. Validate their emotion--even when there is misbehavior involved.
4. Provide verbal labels for the emotion--it gives the child a sense of control.
5. Help them solve their problem, while setting limits.  "All wishes and feelings are acceptable, but not all behaviors."

Enneagram Personality Types, Marriage, and Parenting

N and I took an Enneagram personality test. After about 40 questions it tells you which of the 9 personality types you are. We took the free version, while the "scientifically validated" version is $10. It turned out to be somewhat accurate, and insightful for our relationship as well as our views on parenting. So here it is. A free and uncalled for look into our personalities, and our marriage. : )

My Personality: #4 - The Individualist
"The introspective, romantic type. Fours are self-aware, sensitive, and reserved. They are emotionally honest, creative, and personal, but can also be moody and self-conscious. Withholding themselves from others due to feeling vulnerable and defective, they can also feel disdainful and exempt from ordinary ways of living. They typically have problems with melancholy, self-indulgence, and self-pity."

N's Personality: #6 - The Loyalist
"The committed, security-oriented type. Sixes are reliable, hard-working, responsible, and trustworthy...can also become defensive, evasive, and anxious—running on stress while complaining about it. They can be cautious and indecisive, but also reactive, defiant and rebellious. They typically have problems with self-doubt and suspicion."

Our Relationship
Strengths: "Rather than energize each other, when they are healthy, Fours and Sixes tend to support and stabilize each other, usually acting as a sounding board for worries and complaints that they feel they cannot air anywhere else. Fours bring sensitivity, sensuality, and the ability to express emotions openly, including the feelings that Sixes themselves do not know how to express. Fours talk about their inner lives—again, something that Sixes often need to learn. Sixes bring hard work, perseverance, practicality, loyalty, and concern with security to the relationship." Spot on.

Trouble Spots: "Generally, Fours are more interested in self-exploration and self-development and they tend to be more adventuresome in their tastes and in what they allow themselves to think and to experience. Sixes tend to be more conservative and resistant to change and to personal exploration..."

Parenting:
This one was pretty insightful--and good to remember when we're discussing parenting styles. Poor LG, he's going to have to balance all this institutional pressure:
Me: "May demand sensitivity, artistic creativity, emotional depth, and understanding—that their child be a Little Therapist"
N: "May demand dependability, obedience, perseverance, and trustworthiness—that their child be a Little Trouper"

N and I were laughing as we read the descriptions because of how accurate they are. The test didn't really tell us anything we weren't already aware of, but it was amusing to have it explained to us by a personality test.

The Assault on The Culture Warrior: I'll read it if it's the same as my other books

According to a psychological prinicple known as "confirmation bias," we tend to seek out or interpret information that confirms our preconceived opinions. We all do this. If you disagree, try this experiment. Think of the last time you sought out and read a book that you knew was contrary a strongly held opinion or belief. My guess is you probably haven't. After all, what's the point? Why would you want to have your opinion challenged? If you have, it was probably like me, who often seeks out books that are contrary only to understand the enemy, or see why they're wrong. : )

It is in that spirit that I have began reading, somewhat simultaneously, Bill O'Reilly's Culture Warrior, and Al Gore's The Assault On Reason. O'Reilly offends a lot of people. His is not a book that I would read normally, but I'm reading it. With an (arguably) open mind. To balance that (arguably), I'm reading Gore, who also offends some people. Some might even suggest that Gore's book itself is an assault on reason.

I believe that in order to truly be rational, thinking citizen, we must seek out information from all over the spectrum. We don't need to agree with everything, of course, but learning about other's perspectives will help us understand each other, unify people across partisan lines, and make us more thoughtful in what we do believe.

Any suggestions (from all sides) of books I might want to read? One caveat: I'm not ready to read Ann Coulter, so please don't suggest that. : )