Blog Post #5

 The stigma of counseling

    There is a social stigma and shame in seeing a psychologist, psychiatrist, therapist or counselor that is not experienced in a visit to the doctor or dentist. 

    When things go wrong in our bodies, like catching a cold or having a bad toothache, we are not usually embarrassed to seek professional aid in dealing with the problem. But when it comes to admitting that there is something wrong with our mind, we feel ashamed.

    Many counselors, like the therapist at http://houstontherapist.com/tonys-interactive-therapy-faq/, feel the need to defend their existence by answering questions like: Don't only weak or really messed up people go to therapy? How is talking to a therapist different from talking to my friends?

    I would like to take a look at how we form these stigmas about getting professional help for mental issues. What parts of our culture contribute to this reluctance?

    The largest part of people's aversion to therapy can be explained, I believe, by looking at the stereotypes of psychologists perpetuated in movies and TV. Films in which psychologists play a major role, like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Couples Retreat, and Analyze That all contribute to these ideas.

    In One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, psychologists are portrayed as cruel and inhumane; the main character pretends to be insane in order to avoid jail but his plan backfires and he ends up in an asylum where the medical professionals are portrayed as the movie's bad guys. 

    In Couple's Retreat, a couple is having marriage trouble so they ask three other couples they are close with to go on a special cruise, and it turns out that it is mandatory for all four couples to go through the marriage counseling. While this movie portrays the psychologist as a nice person, it characterizes him as detached from reality and overly eccentric.  

     In Analyze That, Billy Crystal plays an unhappy hypocrite who loves to give advice to his clients but can never successfully apply it to his own life. 

    These movies are not the exception but the norm when it comes to portraying psychologists inaccurately,  and myths are just prevalent in movies where psychologists play minor roles. For people who have never actually seen a psychologist, these are the source of information from which they get their first impressions, and sustain the idea that the entire field of psychology and psychiatry consists only of therapists and counselors who practice Freud's "talking cure," and not only that but these counselors are generally not portrayed as people with morals or professionalism or either.

    Most of the stereotypes I've elaborated on are based on ignorance. If people went to see a psychologist for regular check ups as they do with doctors or dentists, they would gain a better understanding of what it is that they do.

    The biggest myth perpetuated by the media is that psychology is only for people who are extremely mentally ill. The most publicized cases of psychology tend to be about the patients with the most "shock factor," truly psychotic people. In truth, the idea of seeing a psychologist for regular checkups is not a bad one - it would increase the chance of catching early symptoms of mental impairment like dementia, and could help people be proactive in their fight with depression, or attention disorders. Then people wouldn't wait until they were on the brink of self-destruction to see a psychologist; they could prevent things from getting that far. Practices like these would help psychologists to be seen as more of a desirable luxury and a benefit of our affluent society. Asking advice from experts, through counseling, is the same as asking a doctor to approve a new diet plan, or hiring a gym trainer to help with physical fitness. 

    Once people begin to come to terms with the fact that psychology is a very broad field that is not only concerned with mental disorders but that includes many, many other job tracks besides counseling, hopefully the social stigma of seeing a psychologist will begin to abate. Seeking improvement is not something people should be ashamed of.

Blog post #4

 

We are in truth, more than half what we are by imitation - Lord Chesterfield

                   We like to think that we're smarter than monkeys. But truthfully, the old phrase "Monkey see, monkey do." applies just as much to human behavior as to primate behavior. We both learn by observing behavior and then attempting to replicate it. 

                   Albert Bandura proved the validity of learning through observation alone in a famous psychological study. He didn't believe that direct reinforcement could account for all types of learning, so he devised the Bobo Doll Study. In it, he filmed a women beating up a bobo doll, an inflatable, egg-shaped creature with a weighted bottom that makes if bob back up when you knock it down. She punched the clown, shouting "sockeroo!" She hit it with a hammer, sat on it, kicked it, and so on, shouting aggressive phrases all the while. 

                  Bandura took this film and showed it to a group of kindergarteners who, not surprisingly, liked it a whole lot. Then he sent them into the playroom, which contained, among other things, a bobo doll and a few little hammers. Predictably, the kids beat the daylights out of the bobo doll. They punched it, shouting "sockeroo!" They hit it with their hammers, kicked it, sat on it, and essentially imitated the actions of the woman in the film.  This hardly seems like an experiment until you consider what Bandura left out of his scenario. A reward.

According to the previously held standard behavioristic learning theory, people changed their actions in response to a reward or punishment. The children hitting the bobo doll changed their behavior without any provocation. 

                    Bandura's new social cognitive theory changed the way people thought about learning. It also shed some light onto the existence of prejudice in our culture. This effect is unfortunate but true; people observe traits that support prejudices or others showing prejudice, and internalize the negative bias. They are influenced by many things, prevalent among them the media.  

                    For example, one stereotype propagated by today's pop culture is that of the mean, shallow, blond sorority girl. In almost every teen movie, the popular sorority girl plays the villain and torments the story's sensitive and unconventional protagonist. I'm not one for watching teen chick flicks, and my exposure to story lines of this sort has been limited, but I recently came face to face with a set of prejudices I didn't know I had, that I believe were influenced by media. Upon my arrival at UCF, I met my roommates, and the first thing I learned about them was that they were rushing for sororities. Immediately,  I began thinking very negative and judgmental thoughts; I had a very clear idea in my mind of what to expect from them: insincerity, shallowness, and desire to elevate themselves by belittling others.

Keep in mind that I'd never really interacted with sorority girls previously - my negative feelings were certainly not based off of past experience.

                      Luckily, my expectations didn't turn out to be even close to the truth. My roommates are, first of all, not carbon copies of a stereotype but people with very different interests and personalities. Two of them are, as you would expect from sorority girls, extremely extraverted, but the third is quite shy. They are all very friendly; they don't throw wild parties or give numerous insincere compliments. One of them loves musicals and is majoring in Theatre; another wants to be a nurse. Also, they do not wear pink all the time, like in the movies. It's been four months and I have yet to overhear any of them gossiping or spreading rumors or even criticizing others behind their backs. In short, they are very likable people. 

                        I guess that my exposure to media that stereotyped sorority girls, and possibly judgmental comments I've heard from my peers on the same subject, influenced me to a much larger extent than I realized. If I had stopped and thought about it, I would have realized that a couple of my friends from high school who I know to be kind people joined sororities at their colleges, and therefore the stereotype must have at least a couple exceptions. Hopefully now I will be more on guard when it comes to passing judgment on people groups. 

                         In hindsight, it is easy to see how my mental processes directly matched up to steps in the observational learning and modeling process. At some point in middle or elementary school, probably at a a birthday sleepover, I must have watched a movie that portrayed sorority girls as cruel, insincere, and shallow. The movie captured my attention, and even though I can't remember what its title was or even the plot, I retained the characterization of sorority girls. Then in conversation, a friend made a derogatory comment about sorority girls, or popular girls. I verbally agreed, and the stereotype was further reinforced. Soon I was reproducing statements that continued to develop the stereotype. Because it is so widespread in American teenage society, any comment I made that coincided with prejudice against sorority girls prompted agreement from my audience. (Ironically enough, most teenagers, even the popular ones, make statements that are prejudiced against that stereotypical popular kid who few have met but everyone knows exists in the movies and TV shows.) This positive reinforcement motivated me to continue my stereotype until just four months ago when it was challenged and proven too simplistic to truly represent the group.

                        Now that I am aware of this tendency to form opinions on subjects that I have no facts or experience about, I really hope I'll be evaluating my prejudices for basis. I've never considered myself a prejudiced person, but truthfully, all humans are subject to the influence of observation. Now that I know that when I'm passively taking in information I'm no better at maintaining rationality and not allowing myself to be influenced into copying behaviors than your average monkey, I think I'll be more motivated to actively examine the basis of my biases.

Framing Bias In Action

Most humans like to think that they are rational, and that their decisions are made based off of facts. They also like to think that their memories are an accurate record of things that have happened to them, but actually, cognitive biases skew people's decision-making, and even their memories. 

For example, the way a question is "framed" can influence how people think about it. Companies like Nestle use the term "fun size" to describe one of their smallest candy sizes, in an effort to put a positive spin on the fact that you are getting less substance for your money, and so far the marketing technique has worked very well.

A popular example of the frame bias effect is shown in this study:

"Imagine you work for the Center for Disease Control and there is an outbreak of a deadly disease  in a town of 600 people. All 600 people in the town will die if you do nothing. You have come up with two different programs to fight the disease:

With Program 1: 200 people in the town will be saved
With Program 2: There is a 1/3rd probability that 600 people will be saved, and a 2/3rds probability that no people will be saved.

In the study, 72 percent of the subjects picked Program 1. Now consider the same scenario worded differently:

With Program 3: 400 people in the town will die
With Program 4: There is a 1/3rd probability that nobody will die, and a 2/3rds probability that 600 people will die.

In the study, 78 percent of the subjects picked Program 4, even though the net result of the second set of choices is exactly the same as the first set

 (Programs 1 and 3 mean the same thing, and Programs 2 and 4 mean the same thing)."

Another great example showing how framing can affect your memory is found in Aldert Vrij’s book Detecting Lies and Deceit. He  talked about a study that showed how framing can influence your memories :

"Participants saw a film of a traffic accident and then answered questions about the event, including the question ‘About how fast were the cars going when they contacted each other?’ Other participants received the same information, except that the verb ‘contacted’ was replaced by either hit, bumped, collided, or smashed. Even though all of the participants saw the same film, the wording of the questions affected their answers. The speed estimates (in miles per hour) were 31, 34, 38, 39, and 41, respectively.

One week later, the participants were asked whether they had seen broken glass at the accident site. Although the correct answer was ‘no,’ 32% of the participants who were given the ‘smashed’ condition said that they had. Hence the wording of the question can influence their memory of the incident."


But the place where framing bias is easiest to spot is in politics. Politicians have been using this strategy for hundreds of years, and political terms are constantly changing in an effort to stay on the positive side of public opinion.

Case in point, Lenin of communist fame used the technique when naming his political factions. His supporters were originally known by the russian word for "hard," and Martov's supporters were known as "soft," the word choice carrying the connotation that he and his people were strong and that the opposing party was weak. As soon as his supporters defeated Martov's in the question of party membership (by a very very narrow margin) he changed the terms to "Bolsheviks" based off the russian word for majority, and "Mensheviks" based off the russian word for minority, once again cleverly implying that his party is stronger, and his terminology became self-fulfilling, since his party did end up becoming the stronger party. If Martov had been a shrewder politician and changed the name of his political faction to something that the public had positive connotations with he could potentially have sustained his party and history might have turned out differently.

In more recent years, politicians are aware of the strategy and fight fire with fire. When the group who protests abortion chose to take on the name "pro-life," they not only made their name positive but made their opposition's implied name negative; no one wants to be associated with "anti-life!" group. Their opposition didn't fall into the trap, instead choosing the name "pro-choice," another term with a positive connotation.

Framing terms profoundly influences people, and the scariest part about them is that they can manipulate your feelings about an issue without you necessarily being aware. However, when you recognize that these biases exist, it's easier to keep their phrasing from influencing your decision too much. Next time you hear an advertisement or a politician trying to convince you of something, listen closely and try to look at the content instead of the presentation.

Classical Conditioning in Advertising

       The people who work in advertising and marketing are masters of classical conditioning. They use Pavlov's techniques to their advantage, coupling their products with catchy tunes and pleasing visuals and exposing the public to these advertisements over and over again until their brand and product are ingrained in the viewer's mind. In an attempt to sell their product, companies compete to catch the consumer's attention.  

Take, for example, Rick Perry's presidential campaign ad. It bears remarkable similarities to an action movie trailer. 

the intended effect can be observed in this equation: 

action movie stars = cool

"action movie" starring Rick Perry = cool

Rick Perry = cool

This is not your typical presidential campaign ad. Indeed, it gives you hardly any information about Rick Perry's political party, his history, his experience, or even the issues he is passionate about. Instead, the campaign attempts to tap into the emotions people associate with action movies.

Compare Perry's ad with the movie trailer for I am Legend.  

                 

Both are filmed in the same choppy, adrenaline-inducing style, and have similar background music intended to increase the viewer's anticipation. They even use the same font!

Rick Perry's advertising campaign's thought process probably went something like this:
How can we target the young voter's age demographic? By using something that appeals to them.  How can we make an over 60-year-old Republican appealing to that demographic? Create an image of him as a hero.

Therefore, the first 40 seconds of the ad focus on Obama, the "Zero President." It juxtaposes images of an abandoned country and increasingly urgent news casts that report high poverty rates with audio of Obama denying that anything is wrong with the economy. The tone is bleak, the lighting dark, and the buildings and billboards are crumbling.

Then, "In 2012" flashes on the screen. Suddenly everything is brighter: the world is repopulated with healthy kids. Paparazzi take photos of Perry. He is shown shaking hands with American workers. He wears his Air Force suit. "The United States of America really is the last great hope for mankind!" he says.


As far as conditioning goes, this ad might influence people. Americans want the leader of their country to be a heroic figure.  When we watch action movies, we willingly suspend our disbelief, and root for the protagonist when he faces overwhelming odds. By establishing himself as the protagonist, Rick Perry associates himself with all the childhood heros of Americans.

 Another influential point regarding the ad is that it is not boring. In my age demographic, the group of people who are just now receiving the right to vote,  many are politically apathetic. However, though only a small percentage of them will turn up to vote, hordes of young adults will show up for the premiere of the latest exciting action movie. The same applies to advertisements on TV. Many potential voters zone out when a political ad comes on. Perry's ad seems like a movie trailer when it begins, and therefore people will be less likely to tune it out; by the time they realize it's a political campaign, it will be almost over, and they will be much more likely to watch the ending.

I think that Rick Perry's campaign team is using conditioning by likening Perry to a hero in an action movie. Even though they don't provide any proof or documentation of heroic acts, they use filming principles so that people will remember his name, and vote him for President, even if they can't pinpoint what he has done. Time will tell if their advertising is effective or not.

The fallacy of positive instances in conspiracy theory

Why do people believe in conspiracy theories? 

To understand, we look no farther than the prophet Nostradamus. In the 16th century, he wrote: 

 "Beasts wild with hunger will cross the rivers, 
The greater part of the battle will be against Hister,

He will cause great men to be dragged in a cage of iron,

When the son of Germany obeys no law."

and another prophecy:

"Out of the deepest part of the west of Europe,

from poor people a young child shall be born,

Who with his tongue shall seduce many people,

His fame shall increase in the Eastern Kingdom."


"He shall come to tyrannize the land.

He shall raise up a hatred that had long been dormant.

The child of Germany observes no law.

Cries, and tears, fire, blood, and battle."

Hundreds of people have read these words and reached the conclusion that Nostradamus predicted the rise and fall of Hitler thousands of years before his birth. Even the name "Hister" is almost identical to Hitler. Hitler was born to impoverished parents, became a great orator, and tyrannized the land, increasing hatred of the Jewish people. What are the odds? 

If this seems too amazing to be a coincidence, you might be falling prey to the fallacy of positive instances. Let me explain.

Imagine you go on a blind date, and discover that the other person owns the same model of car that you own. You dismiss it as a neat coincidence. 

Later on you learn that they have a sister with the same name as your sister, and both sisters were born in April. You start to wonder if this is confirmation that it's meant to be. 

As the evening continues, you discover that you both own all six Star Wars movies, and the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy on dvd. You loved the same television shows as a child. You both love ice cream, you both hate spam. You are made for each other.

Before you run off to Vegas to get married, let's take a moment to put things into perspective.

How many people on Earth own that model of car? How common is your sister's name? Since you grew up in the same decade as this person, is it that unusual that you watched the same television shows as a child? Star Wars and Lord of the Rings are very culturally relevant and most people your age have at least seen the movies. Almost everyone loves ice cream. Many people hate spam. 

Now think about the things you don't share an interest in; the reason you spent most of the evening talking about the things mentioned above is because you have them in common. You weren't able to discuss music at all because they like country and you like hip-hop. Your mothers have different names, and are born in different months. Your fathers have different names and are born in different months. You don't even have a brother. 

We tend to remember or notice information that supports our desires, and forget discrepancies. This is known as the fallacy of positive instances. 

When you are amazed by the idea of Nostradamus predicting Hitler, you ignore the fact that he wrote almost a thousand vague predictions, most of which have not "come true." When you discover that Hister is the Latin name for the Danube River, not the name of a person, his prediction seems even less dazzling. 

The most compelling argument against Nostradamus' psychic abilities is that his "true" predictions are the result of random chance, and creative interpretation. Because of the sheer volume of his predictions, it's certainly possible that some events would seem to fit, simply by coincidence. Not to mention that most of his quatrains refer to deaths, wars, or natural disasters - events that are guaranteed to happen over and over again throughout history.

So next time you come across a coincidence that's too good to be true, take a moment to weigh the number of positive correlations against the number of facts that don't correlate at all. Many a conspiracy theory is easily debunked if you take into account all the facts that don't correlate.