EMERSON QUOTE 3

 

THE EFFECT OF PARENTING STYLES ON CHILDREN

There are four basic styles of parenting:  Authoritarian, Authoritative, Permissive, and Uninvolved. Of these four styles, the best outcomes, in terms of creating healthy development in children, occur when the Authoritative approach is used. The other three styles of parenting tend to cultivate negative and unhealthy characteristics in children that may seriously affect them as adults and possibly for the extent of their lives. Indeed, the other three styles of parenting also put children at risk for various clinical disorders.

Developmental psychologists have researched and identified four basic styles of parenting. Each style has advantages and disadvantages. Identifying these styles and the characteristics that define them can be helpful in determining what works and what does not in parent-child relationships. Determining the efficacy of parenting styles is invaluable when attempting to modify and correct developmental issues in children.

TYPES OF PARENTING STYLES

Of the four basic parenting styles, it has been determined that the Authoritative style is most conducive to healthy developmental growth in children. The characteristics of this style include being relatively strict and setting firm limits with children.

Tempering Authoritative parenting with emotionally warm, supportive, and explanatory communication style promotes optimum results in children’s mental health. Parents try to give appropriate consequences when children misbehave, but in doing so, they also try to facilitate children’s understanding about why they are being punished. Following through on these actions reinforces the message that parents do not enjoy punishing, but rather they care about the welfare of the child.

Research on parenting styles indicates the efficacy of Authoritativeness in parenting. For example, in studies involving the authoritative style of parenting, combined with Vygotsky’s concept of scaffolding, it appears that this style was more effective in producing positive results with relationship to parenting than either of the other three styles of parenting.

Another style of parenting is the Authoritarian style. This style incorporates some aspects of the authoritative style of parenting, e.g. strictness, firm boundaries; however, their approach is more controlling and absolute with a low tolerance for disagreement from their children. It is also much more punitive and often incorporates elements of abuse: mental, emotional, and physical abuse. Another negative difference between the Authoritative style and the Authoritarian style is that, while the first style is warm, the second is cold and rigid.

At the other end of the parenting spectrum is the Uninvolved style of parenting. Parents in this case show almost no caring for their children. The parental approach is rejecting, instead of warm. Though parents using this style will take care of most physical needs of their children, this style of parenting contains the element of neglect, which is considered by many professionals to be the most harmful form of abuse in child rearing.

The final parenting style is Permissiveness. Permissive parents also contrast strongly with the Authoritarian style of parenting. They have very few limits, rules, or boundaries with their children and they allow them to do almost anything they want. Feedback from these parents is sporadic and inconsistent, fostering feelings of insecurity and doubt within their children. The message children usually receive is that the parents do not really care very much about them because they do not act as if they really have much responsibility for their children.

Often permissive parents do not hold their children responsible in areas where they need to take accountability, setting them up to become irresponsible adults.

In addition, permissiveness cultivates a feeling of emotional detachment with children, as with the uninvolved style of parenting. Uninvolvement or neglect appears to have the most destructive influence on children resulting in children feeling unloved, unwanted, negatively affecting all aspects of child development.

The current trend of mothers employed outside the home while children are very young causes concern for psychologists, sociologists, and general society. These entities fear that the resultant time limitations of parents may contribute to lack of involvement with their children resulting in detrimental effects to children’s emotional well-being.

However, research on this phenomenon is inconclusive. There are some small differences between the mothering of working mothers vs. non-working mothers, but these are insignificant. Research indicates that other factors, such as fathers’ ability to parent, attitude of the mother, reasons for working, and general socio-economic status play an important role in determining whether the effects of working mothers create a negative and permissive or uninvolved parenting style.

RISK FACTORS FOR CLINICAL DISORDERS

Some characteristics that put children at risk for various clinical disorders are:  emotional distancing; mental, verbal, emotional, and physical abuse; rigidity and too much reserve; lack of boundaries; poor communication skills resulting in harsh, inconsistent and/or lack of feedback from parents; poor listening style; and excessive control. Authoritarian and Permissive parenting styles most often contain the foregoing negative aspects of parenting.

One clinical disorder that often results from abuse suffered as a child is Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). Usually, the person with BPD has experienced physical, emotional, or sexual abuse while young. Even though the ongoing debate of nature vs. nurture continues in this area, studies support findings that people with BPD suffered some kind of abuse early in their lives.

Other parenting style characteristics considered protective factors for clinical disorders are:  tolerance; flexibility; good verbal/listening skills; emotional support, connectedness, and appropriateness. The Authoritative style of parenting most often contains these positive attributes. Any opposing actions of parenting characteristics found in the other three styles, in conjunction with the careful promotion of Authoritative parenting can help protect children from certain clinical disorders and provide greater possibilities for a happy, healthy life.

According to The Four Styles of Parenting by Kendra Cherry, the following are impacts of the various parenting styles:

"What effect do these parenting styles have on child development outcomes? In addition to Baumrind's initial study of 100 preschool children, researchers have conducted numerous other studies than have led to a number of conclusions about the impact of parenting styles on children.

Authoritarian parenting styles generally lead to children who are obedient and proficient, but they rank lower in happiness, social competence and self-esteem.

Authoritative parenting styles tend to result in children who are happy, capable and successful (Maccoby, 1992).

Permissive parenting often results in children who rank low in happiness and self-regulation. These children are more likely to experience problems with authority and tend to perform poorly in school.

Uninvolved parenting styles rank lowest across all life domains. These children tend to lack self-control, have low self-esteem and are less competent than their peers."

 

SEE POSTS:  ATTACHED TO ATTACHMENT THEORY 1, 2, AND 3

GRIEF AND GRIEF COUNSELING

THIS POST IS DEDICATED TO MY WONDERFUL MOTHER WHO DIED SUDDENLY YESTERDAY OF A HEART ATTACK.  SHE WILL BE SORELY MISSED BY MANY!

Grief is a multi-faceted response to loss, particularly to the loss of someone or something to which a bond was formed. Although conventionally focused on the emotional response to loss, it also has physical, cognitive, behavioral, social, and philosophical dimensions. While the terms are often used interchangeably, bereavement refers to the state of loss, and grief is the reaction to loss.

An adult may be expected to cope with the death of a parent in a less emotional way; however, it can still invoke extremely powerful emotions. This is especially true when the death occurs at an important or difficult period of life, such as when becoming a parent, graduation or other times of emotional stress. It is important to recognize the effects that the loss of a parent can cause and address these. As an adult, the willingness to be open to grief is often diminished. A failure to accept and deal with loss will only result in further pain and suffering.

Grief counseling is a form of psychotherapy that aims to help people cope with grief and mourning following the death of loved ones, or with major life changes that trigger feelings of grief (e.g., divorce).

Grief counselors feel that everyone experiences and expresses grief in their own way, often shaped by culture. They believe that it is not uncommon for a person to withdraw from their friends and family and feel helpless; some might be angry and want to take action. Some may laugh.

Grief counselors hold that one can expect a wide range of emotion and behavior associated with grief. Some counselors believe that in all places and cultures, the grieving person benefits from the support of others^. Further, grief counselors believe that where such support is lacking, counseling may provide an avenue for healthy resolution. Grief counselors believe that grief is a process the goal of which is "resolution." The field further believes that where the process of grieving is interrupted, for example, by simultaneously having to deal with practical issues of survival or by being the strong one and holding a family together, grief can remain unresolved and later resurface as an issue for counseling.

There is a distinction between grief counseling and grief therapy. Counseling involves helping people move through uncomplicated, or normal, grief to health and resolution. Grief therapy involves the use of clinical tools for traumatic or complicated grief reactions. This could occur where the grief reaction is prolonged or manifests itself through some bodily or behavioral symptom, or by a grief response outside the range of cultural or psychiatrically defined normality.

Grief therapy is a kind of psychotherapy used to treat severe or complicated traumatic grief reactions, which are usually brought on by the loss of a close person (by separation or death) or by community disaster. The goal of grief therapy is to identify and solve the psychological and emotional problems which appeared as a consequence.

They may appear as behavioral or physical changes, psychosomatic disturbances, delayed or extreme mourning, conflictual problems or sudden and unexpected mourning). Grief therapy may be available as individual or group therapy. A common area where grief therapy has been extensively applied is with the parents of cancer patients.

Death education is education about death that focuses on the human and emotional aspects of death. Though it may include teaching on the biological aspects of death, teaching about coping with grief is a primary focus. A specialist in this field is referred to as a thanatologist.

Crying is a normal and natural part of grieving. It has also been found, however, that crying and talking about the loss is not the only healthy response and, if forced or excessive, can be harmful. Responses or actions in the affected person, called "coping ugly" by researcher George Bonanno, may seem counterintuitive or even look dysfunctional, such as celebratory responses, laughter, self-serving bias in interpreting events. Lack of crying is also a natural, healthy reaction, potentially protective of the individual, and may also be seen as a sign of resilience. Science has found that some healthy people who are grieving do not spontaneously talk about the loss and pressing people to cry or retell the experience of a loss can be harmful. Genuine laughter is healthy.

The four trajectories are as follows:

• Resilience: "The ability of adults in otherwise normal circumstances who are exposed to an isolated and potentially highly disruptive event, such as the death of a close relation or a violent or life-threatening situation, to maintain relatively stable, healthy levels of psychological and physical functioning" as well as "the capacity for generative experiences and positive emotions."
• Recovery: When "normal functioning temporarily gives way to threshold or sub-threshold psychopathology (e.g., symptoms of depression or Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)), usually for a period of at least several months, and then gradually returns to pre-event levels."
• Chronic dysfunction: Prolonged suffering and inability to function, usually lasting several years or longer.
• Delayed grief or trauma: When adjustment seems normal but then distress and symptoms increase months later. Researchers have not found evidence of delayed grief, but delayed trauma appears to be a genuine phenomenon.

Five stages theory

The Kübler-Ross model, commonly known as the five stages of grief, is a theory first introduced by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross in her 1969 book, On Death and Dying. The theory describes in five discrete stages a largely untested, but popular process by which people deal with grief and tragedy. Such events might include being diagnosed with a terminal illness or enduring a catastrophic loss. The five stages are denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.

The theory holds that the stages are a part of the framework that helps people learn to live without what they lost. Lay people and practitioners consider the stages as tools to help frame and identify what a person who's suffered a loss may be feeling. The theory holds that the stages are not stops on a linear time line of grief. The theory also states that not everyone goes through all of the stages, nor in a prescribed order. In addition to the five-stages theory, Kübler-Ross has been credited with bringing mainstream awareness to the sensitivity required for better treatment of people who are dealing with a fatal disease.

The stages model, which came about in the 1960s, is a theory based on observation of people who are dying, not people who experienced the death of a loved one. This model found empirical support in a study by Maciejewski et al. The research of George Bonanno, however, is acknowledged as inadvertently debunking the five stages of grief because his large body of peer-reviewed studies show that the vast majority of people who've experienced a loss do not grieve, but are resilient. The logic is that if there is no grief, there are no stages to pass through.

Physiological and neurological processes

fMRI scans of women from whom grief was elicited about the death of a mother or a sister in the past 5 years found it produced a local inflammation response as measured by salivary concentrations of pro-inflammatory cytokines. These were correlated with activation in the anterior cingulate cortex and orbitofrontal cortex. This activation also correlated with free recall of grief-related word stimuli. This suggests that grief can cause stress, and that this is linked to the emotional processing parts of the frontal lobe.

Among those bereaved within the last three months, those who report many intrusive thoughts about the deceased show ventral amygdala and rostral anterior cingulate cortex hyperactivity to reminders of their loss. In the case of the amygdala, this links to their sadness intensity. In those who avoid such thoughts, there is a related opposite type of pattern in which there is a decrease in the activation of the dorsal amgydala and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.

In those not so emotionally affected by reminders of their loss, fMRI finds the existence of a high functional connectivity between the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and amygdala activity, suggesting the form regulates activity in the latter. In those who had greater intensity of sadness, there was a low functional connection between the rostal anterior cingulate cortex and amygdala activity, suggesting a lack of regulation of the former part of the brain upon the latter.

Risks

Bereavement, while a normal part of life, carries a degree of risk when severe. Severe reactions affect approximately 10% to 15% of people^. Severe reactions mainly occur in people with depression present before the loss event. Severe grief reactions may carry over into family relations. Some researchers have found an increased risk of marital breakup following the death of a child, for example. Others have found no increase.

Many studies have looked at the bereaved in terms of increased risks for stress-related illnesses. Colin Murray Parkes in the 1960s and 1970s in England noted increased doctor visits, with symptoms such as abdominal pain, breathing difficulties, and so forth in the first six months following a death. Others have noted increased mortality rates (Ward, A.W. 1976) and Bunch et al. found a five times greater risk of suicide in teens following the death of a parent. 

Complicated grief

The existence of "complicated grief" is a current debate in the field. An attempt is being made to create a diagnosis category for complicated grief in the DSM-V. Critics of including the diagnosis of complicated grief in the DSM-V say that doing so will make a natural response a pathology and will result in wholesale medicating of people who are essentially normal.

Shear and colleagues found an effective treatment for complicated grief, by treating the reactions in the same way as trauma reactions.

Professional support

For a lot of people, no professional support is needed. Some people, however, may decide to seek additional support from licensed psychologists or psychiatrists. Grief counseling, professional support groups or educational classes, and peer-led support groups are support resources available to the bereaved. In the United States, local hospice agencies may be a first contact for those seeking bereavement support. ~ WIKIPEDIA

BUDDHA DEATH QUOTE

Without health life is not life; it is only a state of langour and suffering - an image of death.

~ Buddha

DOES THE 1% DO MOST OF THE THINKING?

Co-authored with Sodium Boy

With all the OWS talk going around, I feel the need to clarify my position on capitalism.

PICTURE CREDIT AP BEBETO MATTHEWS

At an OWS demonstration recently, someone put up a sign saying, "It's because the 1% do most of the thinking."  The arrogance and entitlement behind this type of thinking is mind-boggling!  This is how some of them rationalize the theft of the people's money.

I think many people are making mistakes in arguing this subject, resulting in circular debate, animosity, and confusion.  Some people on the right accuse OWS "complainers" of being unpatriotic, ignorant, and lazy.   It is proof that they do not think.   Some people on the left complain about capitalism and its "evils".

I have noticed that discussions and comments on blogs exhibit a kind of angry, terse concision, which doesn't allow for the development of a set of common operational definitions.  I've noticed also that commentators and debaters often jump to conclusions and make generalizations about their fellow commentators that are false and sometimes even derogatory.  Obviously, this type of communication is not productive.

For example, when I argued in sympathy with the OWS, I was called a "lefty" by one responder, when in reality, I am on the left on some issues and on the right on others.  It is unfortunate that many who consider themselves to be on the right politically tend to brand others who do not believe as they do as “lefties” or "socialists" which is false.

In my opinion, discussion such as this does not lend itself well to emotionally charged quips.  Most people have emotional attachments to their particular social and economic preferences and are emotionally reactive to certain words, causing them to veer easily off course.  As a result, most discussions end up in misunderstanding and frustration.

One of the best things about the video I have posted below (by Mr. Griffin, a Libertarian) is that he brings out the issue that people often do not have common operational definitions of words like capitalism and socialism, etc., as a base from which to discuss these subjects rationally.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVdI4Kx8TdY

As I see it, the basis for the OWS movement is simple:  As with religion, most people also are most comfortable with the political and economical system into which they were born.  As long as they are comfortable, they usually do not question their country's economic system.  However, when people suffer, as they do now, they begin to rebel.

I agree with the point of view of some critics who say that some people in the OWS movement are ignorant of important facts—how our system works vs. how it should be working—causing them to come to erroneous conclusions derogatory of capitalism.  Many of the 99% also have difficulty explaining what they think should be changed because they are not accustomed to speaking extemporaneously.

However, I believe the corporate media shows these negative examples, rather than positive ones, to degrade the integrity and validity of the OWS movement.  After all, part of what the OWS movement wants is for media to stop highlighting what is most shocking and entertaining and reporting what is factual and relevant.  I also believe many more OWS supporters do know what is wrong and what they want changed.

Most of us hope, or even assume, that those who see themselves as individualists, understand that individualism means recognizing that others are also individuals.  Respect for individuals means respect for the needs, desires, and aspirations of everyone.

Unfortunately, most of us who also see the obvious benefits of individualism in our culture are naive and blinded by the individualist vs. collectivist arguments of some vocal right-wingers.  Again, our lack of operational definitions leaves us without a solid base for discussion on individualism.  Sadly, most of those who tout individualism are actually autocrats—they like individualism as long as they can be the "individualists" who get to tell everyone else what to do.

For example, in a business situation, an individual owner would see that his/her individual employees would have the best management equipment and pay that he/she could give them while still making a decent profit.  Many privately held companies in the U.S. operate on this level.

Many wealthy people (not of the 1%) who have privately owned companies are not on the stock market.  Yet they provide jobs without the machinations of Wall Street and the government.

Unfortunately, the usual models we see are publicly held companies whose policies are dictated by stock-owning shareholders and are represented by a board of directors.

In this model, we understand that there is a natural antipathy between owners and labor.  The first concern of a publicly held company is profits, not the good of individuals.  Therefore, in my opinion, these publicly held companies are collectivist in nature and engage in a form of theft from the stakeholders of the company (i.e. the INDIVIDUAL workers).

An ongoing argument from the right is that capitalism creates jobs and investment creates wealth.  Why demonstrate against those aspects of our economy?  When they make such statements, I am often shocked when realizing the ignorance of people in the throes of their personal beliefs.

The proof is all around us:

The investment money is not trickling down.

There are not enough jobs and/or well-paying jobs.

The inflated economy and poor paying jobs force most households into two-parent incomes. Quality of family life is sacrificed.

Many people are working 2 or 3 part-time jobs with no benefits just to scrape by.

Insurance rates are too high because medical costs are too high.

Wall street is rigged in many cases...(illegal stock tips are rampant)

...and The Fed is making money just by printing it, without backing, and making loans. We are trillions of dollars in debt.  In debt to whom?  To what?  To The Fed, a privately owned central bank.  This private business essentially "owns" most of us.

Banks are giving credit cards with outrageous interest and deceptive policies, and granting mortgages to people they know cannot afford them.

Due to the incredible inflation of higher education, in order to get a degree, most people are now forced to take government loans.  Ultimately, most of us are becoming slaves of debt--to the system.

Our government and banking is "doing the thinking" on how to make money--off the backs of most citizens working hard to pay bills and loans (actually creating real money) plus interest (creating more real money).

So what else is wrong with the system as it is now operating?

Here is a clue:  The upper 1% is comprised of bankers, investors, government officials, and lobbyists who legislate on their behalf. These facts are not generally disputed.

The nature of money creation (fiat money and fractional reserve banking and interest—or usury) is "the 900 lb gorilla in the room" no one wants to deal with.

Unfortunately, the economic problems we are seeing in the U.S. affect the entire world.  The economies of almost all countries whether communist, socialist, monarchical, or capitalist are run according to this private central bank model.

That brings us to another clue: “In the words of Niall Ferguson, of the House of Rothschild:

There are now only 5 nations on the world left without a Rothschild controlled central bank [LIKE THE FEDERAL BANK]: Iran; North Korea; Sudan; Cuba; and Libya.”

We can cross Libya off that list now.  What country is next?

I accuse the 1% of breaking the law.  Most of them did not get rich through the design of capitalism.

For example: “Old" money was often made through monopolies, stealing patents, government back-handing, favoritism, and other kinds law-breaking (like the Kennedy’s bootlegging).  That gave these so-called capitalists (who are really autocrats!) money to make even more money.

The top 1% DOES NOT TRULY CREATE; they make money from money off the backs of those who work.  They especially make money when the stock market goes down.  There is evidence to show that they manipulate stock market crashes. There is no legality or virtue in that. These 1% are the underbelly of capitalism.

The OWS phenomenon is not mainly about who does the most thinking; it is not really about class, about poor vs. rich.  Their argument is not even about our basic system of capitalism. 

PICTURE CREDIT:  REUTERS

The argument is about the perversion of capitalism!  Why?  Because the 1% grease palms, become bedfellows with politicians, and create unethical laws enabling them to steal money earned by the majority.  Capitalism was created to be a system whereby most people could have opportunities to do well economically.  However, that is no longer happening.

I hope this information clarifies my position—and perhaps the thinking of  some of the 99%.

 

MINDFULNESS: REWIRING THE BRAIN

Is this good news for the field of psychology?  We have been often told that we can develop new thought patterns and new habits from anywhere from 21 days to 3 months, depending on which "Guru" you believe.  

Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP) has been popularizing this concept quite a lot lately. This includes motivational speakers like Tony Robbins.  (Warning:  NLP is not without its strong detractors. Listen carefully to their views before you make up your mind. In my experience, they often snatch ideas from other psycho-therapeutic modalities and claim them as their own.)

It is really possible?  Neuroplasticity is the latest buzzword in believing in change.  Have you heard about it ? Do you believe it?  

There is evidence to support this theory; though I doubt that such changes are usually accomplished in such short time spans.  It sounds positive and hopeful, and perhaps that, in itself, can be a boon to the field of Psychotherapy (and Coaching)
.

Article from: www.psychcentral.com
 
by Elisha Goldstein, Ph.D.

"If you’ve been following recent developments in the field of psychology or neuroscience or if you’ve been following my postings, you’ve heard the term neuroplasticity before.

This term refers to the discovery in recent years that the brain is actually malleable throughout the lifespan and we have the ability to grow new neural connections. This has tremendous implications for our mental health and anything that has to do with human training, both hopeful and detrimental.

Now, this isn’t the first time this idea has come up. In the late 1800s, Freud hypothesized about this calling it the law of association by spontaneity, and in recent years neuroscientists have come up with the catchy saying, “neurons that fire together, wire together.”

In other words, how and what we pay attention to has tremendous implications for how our brains grow.

Or as Dan Siegel and Rick Hanson have been saying, we can use our minds to shape our brains to help our minds. Read that over a few times, the clouds will begin to clear up.

I was just at a UCLA psychotherapy conference with psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Norman Doidge, author of The Brain That Changes Itself: Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers of Brain Science, and he made it very clear that the advent of neuroplasticity isn’t all good news.

He has the analogy of a mountain with fresh powder being the brain. The more often we ski down the mountain, the more snow packs on certain trails. As we continue to ride over those trails over and over again, the faster we begin to go down those trails.

In other words, the more we practice reactivity to our fears (e.g. from small fears to PTSD), the stronger the neural connections in our brains become that make us more likely to be automatically reactive to our fears. Or, the more often we practice automatic negative thinking, the stronger the neural connections become that lead to more automatic reactivity toward automatic negative thinking.

The other part of this news is that our brains are wired to look for danger and pay more attention to the unpleasant than the pleasant. If I were to pay you 10 compliments and then say something judgmental or critical, you are more likely to remember and ruminate about the judgment than the compliments. As you practice this, your reinforce the neural connections that reinforce the auto-pilot reaction.

So, this is where mindfulness comes in: the practice of nonjudgmental awareness to the present moment. We can have an understanding of how our brains operate and see the automatic reactivity for what it is. When we do this, we are present and can make a choice to pay attention differently and rewire our brains.

We can begin to notice pleasant events too, and in order to balance the brain’s tendency to focus on the negative more often, we can bring mindfulness to the pleasant event. What does this mean? This means really tasting in the moment how the body feels, what emotions are present, and what thoughts are here. Maybe there’s a sound and beginning to close the eyes and listen. Beginning to rest in the moment or linger for a bit longer, soaking it in. That’s all, it’s a practice.

If at the end of the day you automatically remember more unpleasant than pleasant, take another look and ask yourself, where were the pleasant moments today? This is not to discount the unpleasant, but more to bring about some balance as it is the brains tendency to give more weight to the unpleasant for evolutionary and adaptive reasons.

So, be aware that our brains are constantly being shaped and when we are present, we have more choice as to how and what we’d like to pay attention to for a healthier brain, which in turn will create a healthier mind. This has implications for how we react to stress, anxiety, depression, addiction, parenting, and certainly in our relationships."

Mindfulness is an ancient, but relatively recently studied subject in psychotherapy.  There appears to be much evidence for its efficacy; however, jumping into any program espousing Mindfulness can be dangerous without accurate and careful mentor-ship.  Just like any practice of meditation...

...we need to be careful to choose one that uses the time-honored methods and work at it.  Good rarely comes easily.  It seems every good has a negative side, a trap, of which we should be aware.

Mindfulness is a "revolutionary" concept helping people heal from depression, anxiety, and various other mental illness ailments.  There is much evidence to show that it is successful in helping people, especially those with anxiety disorders.

Check Jon Kabat Zinn's book on Mindfulness.  It will tickle your brain receptors.  (Warning:  Do your homework before you delve into a Mindfulness program.)

PICTURES ADDED BY BLOG AUTHOR.

ECONOMIC CONFLICT IN GREECE

The current US economic conflict reminds me of the time I worked in Greece.  At first we lived with 20% inflation!  You might understand how crazy that was.  However, the money we made went SO much farther than many years later (when inflation was officially 2-3%-though, in actuality, it was really much higher) when I left.  When change comes too quickly, people rise up.  Change, especially negative change, is difficult to assimilate.  

The gap between generations is felt much more than in other Western countries. Advances are moving much more quickly than in other western countries. However how are they responding politically?  They are responding in the traditional democratic way, a way they are very proud they initiated!  Evidence:  the regular and frequent demonstrations held in Greece. In this effort they seem united.

It is easy to blame Greeks for the economic problems; they are generally disorganized (they are not Germans).  Tax evasion has been joked about as being the national sport.  There are very understandable reasons for this, however. 

These economical problems were a long time coming from outside of Greece, from the European Union and banks. And now their backs are really against the wall.  Most Greeks did not want to be a part of the European Union.  And now they are paying the price.

Greeks are not naive.  They are aware of the rampant corruption in government and big business.  Small business is being driven out.  (And small business is a strong tradition in Greece!)

Greeks feel they are slaves to the current system!  Their attitude is:  why should I pay taxes when most of it goes into the pockets of corrupt politicians and business owners?! Time and time again, Greeks have been proven that they are correct in this assumption.

I believe in these instances they are generally right. Greeks are a very proud people and have no compunction in doing whatever it takes to survive.  And more power to them!

Some Greeks are holding on to a beautiful lifestyle with money earned during times of prosperity. However, as usual, the middle and lower classes (economically speaking) are suffering--really suffering.

This level of this poverty is difficult to imagine for a European.  The primitive level lifestyle in some areas, especially in small villages, can be shocking to the average US citizen.  The positive side is that those poorer people living in the far off places in Greece know how to survive!  (How many of us know those skills?) 

This is a culture that does not often censor their thoughts.  They are passionate and vocal.  As it fits my character, I admire those national characteristics.

Greeks fight back.  They want to be free.  They may not know very well how to fight, but they are not cowards.  They have the small country mentality of fighting to survive, knowing that they are essentially alone.  (That is why their sympathy extends to other small countries, like Palestine that they support.)  Being an "underdog", they know what it is like.

What is their Achilles heel?  Their individualism is so strong that strong organization  becomes very difficult.  (They are, admittedly, not without their faults.)

I say, Bravo to the Greeks!  They lived under a veritable system of slavery for over 400 yrs. under the Turks and were only relatively recently “liberated” in 1922--and they don't forget. The country was only formed as it is known now at late as 1957.  Their memories are relatively fresh regarding how they suffered slavery.

I have never known a country to be more obsessed with freedom, at almost any cost.  They may not understand always the best way to go about keeping it; but I respect and admire them for their drive and ideals. 

Being under the thumb of Turkish domination has affected the Greek culture immensely.  Being at war in WWII and later in the civil war, the older people have not forgotten their trials and have passed on their memories to younger generations.

Now Greece has a strong youth culture that is in rebellion against outside forces that are threatening to ruin their lovely laid-back lifestyles.  A beautiful lifestyle.  A healthy, happy lifestyle.  It grieves me that they may lose it!

They may not be as strategically important to the US as Turkey or other countries, but it would be a great mistake on the part of the US not to value and preserve what Greece has to offer!

HELLAS, HELLAS, HELLAS!!!
 

A RETURN TO NATURAL PHILOSOPHY?

“Those who regard philosophy as a ‘soft’ and unscientific discipline, in contrast to the ‘hard’ and scientific fields of mathematics and physics, have accepted a Big Lie. The ideas of mathematicians and physicists can be no more objective or certain than the philosophic ideas on which they depend. Philosophy is the discipline that tells us how to be objective and how to achieve certainty. Without a theory of knowledge, how would mathematicians or physicists know the relationship of their concepts and generalizations to reality? It is the inductive science of philosophy that teaches the ‘hard’ scientist how to be scientific. ~ Leonard Peikoff in The Logical Leap by David Harriman

Regrettably, the inductive principle of natural philosophy has been dismissed in the ‘mob rule’ culture of science today. And modern philosophy may be the culprit. The corruption in philosophy seems to have spread from Immanuel Kant’s 18th century philosophy that led to ‘positivism,’ which limited the goal of science to merely describing regularities in the behaviour of appearances. Peikoff writes:

“When, thanks to Kant, the most advanced science departs from the proper method—for example, when physicists renounce causality in the subatomic realm and revert to the menial job of ‘saving appearances,’ or when they entirely detach theory from reality and wander around in an eleven-dimensional geometry of spacetime—the cultural consequences are devastating. People hear about such views and conclude: If this is rationality, who need it? There must be something better.”

 

Stephen Hawking (correctly for once) declares in his latest book, “Philosophy is dead.” But so is modern physics, and for the same reason, although the corpse refuses to lie down. Kant’s influence has morphed into the oxymoronic “thought experiment.” Science has become surreal and illogical with the sainted Einstein as its exemplar and holy relic. A return to classical natural philosophy is urgently needed to restore sanity.

 http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/08/31/science-needs-natural-philosophers/ 

Profundity.  The statements found in these paragraphs are rocking my world.  I'm rarely sure about anything, however, the article espouses a fantastic and interesting view of science and philosophy! It makes a lot of "common sense".

THE VALIDITY OF SCIENCE AND ACADEMIA

A fellow blogger and I have been debating lately about the scientific method, reliability in theories, especially conspiracy theories, academic standards, ways of explaining the paranormal and the "uncanny".

My blog friend is in graduate school studying psychology; he is very bright but also very entrenched in academia and "proper" research methods to find conclusions for his hypotheses.  

He seems to be adamant about following the rules as he has learned them.  This I understand very well.  When I studied counseling, they drove into us the importance of using evidence based methods, the perils of falling outside the laws of ethics, and the price you pay for stepping outside academia. If he wants to do well in the eyes of the school, he is on the right road.  I only asked him to consider other options but was not very successful, I think.

At my graduate school they tried to cultivate critical thinking--to an extent.  However, challenging was not part of the curriculum; most teachers don't like to be questioned and they especially don't like to lose a debate to a student. I knew what was expected of me from the beginning of my studies and "kept my place", making excellent grades and building a good reputation.  (I learned many hard lessons from my previous work experience dealing with clinicians and other employees in a mental health center.)  I played the game quite well.

So when my friend began to argue for the scientific method as the only reasonable method for finding truth, I began to push back.  I was surprised but not shocked at his resistance to finding any validity in my arguments. 

He was well conditioned by his academic indoctrination. He was also very passionate about his approach to his thesis.  When I asked about his strong reaction to my challenges, he could not fully identify what emotions he was feeling and why they were triggered.

This experience reminded me of a great quote found in an article by Wal Thornhill.  In this piece, he discusses the relationship between astronomy and philosophy, addressing a few points in my argument.

How can science be so far ‘off the rails’ when it is supposed to be self-correcting? The mistake comes from believing that science is a perfectly rational human pursuit, unlike any other. The polymath psychoanalyst Immanuel Velikovsky was perhaps uniquely qualified to declare in an interview, “Man is irrational in everything he does.”   To restore rationality we must first understand ourselves.

In an extraordinary multidisciplinary forensic investigation, which Velikovsky published in his 1950 best seller, Worlds in Collision, he uncovered mankind’s forgotten experience of doomsday — the end of the world — and our (understandable) irrational response to the trauma. “Man is a wounded animal. His survival is astonishing. But his inability to heal his wounds is tragic,” wrote Dr. Roger Wescott.

The striking red cover of Velikovsky’s Macmillan edition of his book, which was like a red rag to a bull for astronomers. The publishers were forced to transfer the best seller to Doubleday by unprecedented threats from academics.

Since Velikovsky’s discovery was a prehistoric cosmic drama involving the Earth and other planets, some of our craziest collective behavior surrounds astronomy and its antecedent astral religions. 

He wrote, “I was greatly surprised to find that astronomy, the queen of sciences, lives still in the pre-Faraday age, not even in the time of kerosene lamps, but of candles and oil.”  This referred to Faraday’s study of electricity and the fact that the cosmic thunderbolt was memorialized in all ancient cultures as the primary ‘weapon’ during planetary encounters. Therefore electricity must play a role in the cosmos, particularly at times of orbital chaos. But our high-priests of astronomy deny it. 

Meanwhile, spacecraft and radio telescopes routinely reveal magnetic fields in space, which are the signature of electric ‘dark currents’ flowing in the thin plasma. This was my point of departure into the Electric Universe paradigm.

The consequences of the false beliefs of the ‘blinkered’ herd are immense due to the widespread impact, not only on science, but on human culture too. There should be no need to list examples of mankind’s irrational behaviour. It is plainly evident in our wars, religions, politics, business, economics, etc. 

War is a surrogate for doomsday, which we have a dreadful impulse to repeat under the aegis of our various gods. When faced with cataclysm, our response can be to misinterpret or to deny it. Our religions misinterpret it by anthropomorphising the behaviour of the capricious astral gods and assuming the catastrophic references are metaphors. Our sciences deny it by clinging to a Newtonian ‘clockwork’ planetary system, undisturbed for aeons, despite the clear evidence of devastated landscapes on rocky planets and moons, the Earth included. 

Meanwhile, we behave like ‘Chicken Little’ at the appearance of a comet and subconsciously find fleeting catharsis in a glut of disaster, war, and mayhem on TV and in movies.

The Electric Universe paradigm is a natural philosophy based on forensic human evidence spanning millennia. Understanding our past is the way to the future. There is no future for us if we cannot learn this lesson. ~ Wal Thornhill

 

Velikovsky worked hard to break through contemporary mind-sets about astronomy.  History has proved him right.  If you say that this kind of narrow mindedness in academia and the sciences does not happen anymore these days, you would be wrong.

Apart from rigorous education, it seems most of humankind needs more age and experience--not only of life but of other academic disciplines--to expand our mind to the possibilities of solutions, beyond the constraints of current academia.  And, unfortunately, even those prerequisites are not enough in some cases.