| COUNSELOR'S CORNER |
 |
Wednesday, September 26 2012
Neuroscientific Mirages: Are We No More Than Our Brains?
In the middle ages, scholars often began their debates and expositions with the formula: videtur quod non,meaning, “it would appear that such and such is not true.” Thus, the scholars defended their thesis in 2 steps.
First, the discussions centered on the considerations that made the thesis seemingly unlikely. Subsequently, the scholars argued that these considerations were not valid.
Here we will follow the reverse path: videtur quod sic, meaning, “it seems that such and such is true,” to subsequently show that actually it is untrue.
The issue at stake: It appears that in psychiatry, soul and mind have to retreat in favor of the brain and that brain sciences will soon occupy center stage, if that is not already the case.
Here we argue that this prediction is insufficiently grounded, and that if it should happen, the damage to psychiatry would be considerable.
Some definitions first
To begin with, briefly, the definitions of the concepts involved. The word “soul” (or psyche) is used as a metaphor for the conglomerate of psychic functions that enable man to be cognizant of both the world around him and his inner world, to make contact with fellow men, and to interpret that information both intellectually and emotionally.
The word “mind” is used to indicate those ingredients of the soul that make each individual into a unique self. It pertains to the internal structure of the self: the cognitive style of an individual, his ability to analyze, to conceptualize, and the depth and variegation of his emotional repertoire. Mind refers to his aspirations, hopes, and disappointments, his ability to love and to make moral judgments, the measure of his self-consciousness, etc. Mind also encompasses man’s urge to achieve purpose and meaning as well as his desire to provide life with a vertical dimension, to once in a while reach out beyond the horizon—where the lands lie of our dreams, our imagination, and the metaphysical experiences—and where religious sensitivity finds its birthplace.
Mind makes man identifiable for himself and others. Mind is the very essence of selfhood. It overshadows the bodily characteristics of the self by far. Phrased parsimoniously: the soul provides the basic tools with which the unique edifice of the mind is constructed.
Did Descartes err?
The relationship between body and soul has been debated by philosophers for thousands of years. Descartes is linked to the notion that a sharp distinction should be made between body and mind. The body—the res extensa—has spatial extensiveness; the mind—the res cogitans—on the other hand, does not. Both “substances” were thought to operate independently, apart from a possible hyphen Descartes hypothetically located in the pineal gland. The body could be studied with mechanical tools, like a machine; the mind could not, was a domain for philosophical studies.
Descartes has often been misunderstood, taken for a rigorous dualist. For instance, Damasio1 wrote: “Descartes imagined thinking an activity quite separate from the body.” Damasio erred. Descartes considered features such as “feelings” and “tendencies” body- (ie, brain-) dependent. The mind was not, could not be, because it was considered to be immortal. In his day and age, this viewpoint could hardly be (openly) questioned.
Dualism, the separation of brain and mind, is not a popular viewpoint in neurobiological circles, including among biologically oriented psychiatrists. Kendler2 wrote: “Cartesian dualism is false. We need to reject definitively the belief that mind and brain reflect two fundamentally different and ultimately incommensurable kind[s] of ‘stuff.’” He expressed himself rather moderately.
Others have been more outspoken. Swaab3 stated: “We are our brains. The mind I see as a product of our brain cells. Mind is simply material, or better, brain and mind are one thing.” Kandel4 wrote: “What we call mind is a range of functions carried out by the brain.” And, Guze5 declared: “One’s feelings and thoughts are as biological as one’s blood pressure and gastric secretion are.”
Neuronal determinism, as this worldview is called, reigns supreme today. Many neuroscientists, including their psychiatric adherents, believe that by means of brain research, the code of mind and selfhood will be cracked. They consider the problem-solving power of the sciences—the natural sciences—principally boundless. To me this sounds like scientific messianism.
The appearances, however, seem to be against me: videtur quod sic. Scan technology, for instance, brought functional and morphological brain defects to light in a variety of psychiatric disorders. Most evidence suggests that these disturbances underlie the behavioral aberrations, rather than being their consequence. Functional brain changes enable us to execute those functions.
Brain damage, more often than not, leads to behavioral and experiential changes. Drugs may influence brain functions and have the potential to exert both beneficial and detrimental effects on the behavioral repertoire. Chronic biological strain damages the brain and may lead to mental disturbances. Even religiousness, the most esoteric of the mind’s ingredients, seems to be neuronally anchored.6
Mind is a brain derivative and mental disorders are essentially disorders of the brain, and their causal treatment is a matter of brain repair. So it seems. Yet, I reject this reasoning categorically. I submit that dualism, neodualism should be “in” and should remain the very foundation of psychiatry, in both its clinical and therapeutic endeavors. With the term “neodualism,” I allude to the notion that body-brain and mind, although interdependent, can each boast a considerable amount of internal autonomy.
Furthermore, I maintain that mind and brain are made of fundamentally different “stuff”; that mind “stuff” should be systematically studied in its own right, with specific methods not comparable to the ones used by neurobiologists; and that mind “stuff” cannot and will never be fully extrapolatable to brain “stuff.” As an analogy: electric currents can be generated by a generator. Generator and current are coupled, yet they are phenomena of a totally different order, to be studied with different methods. Neither can the beauty, the color, the smell of a rose be extrapolated to the soil from which it springs.
We are our brains
This is the title of a book recently published by the neurobiologist Swaab.7 The wording sounds terse but misses the point. It holds water in that without the brain we wouldn’t be. This logic falters because our spiritual luggage is left unattended. We are more than a machine. Immaterial components are part of our being—our essential parts. They are lost in the phrase “we are our brains.” Brain knowledge yields pitifully little mind knowledge.
Suppose we had detailed knowledge of the neuronal substrate of aesthetic experiences, would that explain their origin, character, and salience in a given individual, and his or her personal preferences? Suppose the neuronal underpinnings of religiosity became an open book, would that make us wiser about the origin of the spiritual needs, about the significance the “vertical dimension” has in someone’s life? Suppose the neuronal substrate of what is called intelligence had been fully clarified, would that knowledge reveal the ways those abilities were actually used? for what purpose? on which grounds? whether intellectual faculties have been used to the fullest, whether intellectual development has been detrimental to one’s emotional life. Does brain knowledge bring us any closer to understanding a person’s hopes, expectations, disappointments, sorrow, bliss, or shame? his love life and the way he loves? Does it provide information about his ability to make moral judgments?
The answer to these questions can hardly be in the affirmative. It is true, the mind’s existence depends on the existence of a brain. But it is also true that the mind has a life of its own, impenetrable to brain researchers, at least for the foreseeable future. The mind is in many respects an independently operating “product” of the brain. It is a domain with its own rules, its own provisions, to be studied with specific methods—methods that have nothing to do with biology. If the mind becomes a vassal territory of the brain sciences, science would suffer irreparably.
Oscar Wilde characterized a cynic as someone who knows the price of every thing but nothing of its value. If “knows” is replaced by “wants to know,” this definition fits the neural determinist perfectly.
Psychiatry is particularly endangered by this extreme variant of biological monism. The brain is dear to the psychiatrist; the mind no less. He has to deal with both—every day and with every patient. What is wrong in the brain? What is the matter with the mind? He ascertains that mental disturbances, more often than not, are preceded by perturbations of the mind. He knows that mind perturbations may cause brain perturbations. The study of the mind is therefore essential to diagnose and treat mental disorders properly. By definition, the psychiatrist is an examiner and healer of the brain as well as of the mind. If a car engine is malfunctioning because of long-term exposure to bad roads, both the engine and road need to be repaired. If they are not, engine problems will return.
Life is determined by the brain
The neuropsychologist Wolters8 called free will an illusion: “Neural determinism will take its place: What we experience, what we think and what we do, is fully determined by the actual state of the brain.” This, too, is a half-truth. The fact that we experience, think, and act is indeed completely determined by the brain. What we experience, think, and do—all of which are in large measure determined by us—is not our selfhood. That self is shaped by life experiences, the milieu in which one is raised, and regular introspection.
The brain provides no information on the way these factors shape the individual. Psychic individuation is not primarily determined by the brain, it is determined by selfhood—by the one I’m going to be and ultimately will be. Selfhood creates itself. It is the master builder of the mind. It is both product and producer. Such is the enigmatic character of who we are. Selfhood’s “fabric” is nebulous and elusive, yet it is experienced as concrete and real.
In the brain, selfhood is not recoverable. It is approachable only for soul researchers and soul healers, and that only to a limited extent. For neurobiologists, it is an entity like the Holy Grail: fascinating but untraceable, for the time being—and I presume, forever.
This is not a novel idea. In the first verses of the book of Genesis, God “formed man of the dust of the ground.” It was not before He breathed in man’s nostrils “the breath of life” that man became a person.9 Man’s mind was created by unique “mind-stuff.” Stuff that made man into more than a thing, it made him into an individual.
Man conceived as a machine is an obvious half-truth. A machine indeed, but a most peculiar one, a spirited machine. For some, a statement beyond belief. For others, like me, a truth. A mystery of the same magnitude as when, long ago, dead matter was converted into living matter, able to reproduce. In principle, mysteries are solvable. The ones I mentioned, however, are more mysterium magnum, ie, a mystery that will remain a mystery, for the time being and probably forever. It is more a romantic than a scientific idea. But, frankly, life without mysteries, in which everything is explicable and without wonders, would lose its luster. At least for me.
Man is the measure of all things
This ancient statement that “man is the measure of all things” was made by the Greek philosopher Protagoras. It is cited with applause by advocates of the “brain-only” idea. For me, this statement raises 3 objections.
1. Protagoras’s thesis has been unduly stretched. Protagoras probably meant to express that all human judgments are subjective, including those regarding abstractions such as righteousness, beauty, virtue, and values such as good and evil. Absolute truth does not exist. Every human being is entitled to make his own decisions.
Protagoras said: “As things occur to me, so they are for me; on the other hand, as things occur to you so they are for you.” In conformity with this reasoning he confessed to be an agnostic: “As far as the gods are concerned, I couldn’t say whether they exist or do not exist, or what their shape is, because many factors limit our knowledge as to that: the obscurity of the subject and the limitations of the human existence.” Protagoras was a relativist: man judges for himself and is his own chief justice. There exists no higher authority—man himself is the measure of all things.
“Brain-only” adherents link in to Protagoras’s relativism but give it another turn. Not so much man, since the brain is considered to be the measure of all things. Man is reduced to a strictly material entity. All his characteristics are materially determined, reducible to matter and hence measurable, given the availability of suitable devices. This holds for the whole of man, both his physical and spiritual features, ie, his mind.
“We are our brains.” The brain determines what and who we are. Beyond the brain lies nothingness. The brain is all-mighty and omnipotent. It is the ultimate contraption steering our life. The brain assumes almost divine grace—Protagoras’s thesis is excessively stretched; overstretched, I would say.
2. Protagoras phrased his thesis in such general terms that it is hard to interpret. He speaks of “man . . . ,” but which man? The average one (if that type exists), the exceptional man, the man approaching stupidity, the humane man or his egocentric counterpart? The variability of mankind is enormous. Furthermore, how do we “measure” man? Where does the benchmark go: in the middle, higher, or maybe lower?
Protagoras speaks of “all things.” But, what are these things? Morality perhaps? Taking into account man’s track record, this bespeaks a rather gloomy worldview. Is Protagoras speaking of introspection, reflection, empathy? The word “thing” is indefinite and, hence, meaningless. Thus, there are many questions but no answers.
3. The third objection is one of personal character. The statement that man is the touchstone of all things kindles in me dreary feelings. Is that arbitrary, undefined “man” really our gauge? Should the standard not be somewhat higher? My answer is: indeed it should. If not, a society stagnates and decays into colorless skepticism or, worse, into defeatism. I refer once more to the Bible in which the standards are very high—for many of us, perhaps unattainably high. Does it harm to consider that high level as a guideline? Certainly not, it is virtuous. It spurs us to try to reform or better a society, with the ultimate (although unattainable) goal of perfection. It provides life with purpose and meaning, however modest the improvement may ultimately be. Such objectives feed hope, and hope is the priceless fruit of the Messianic notion. Without hope, living would make little sense.
As a motto for a scientific movement, Protagoras’s adage seems unsuitable; as a motto for the human condition—disheartening. Man too often remains below par, to serve as a measure of all things.
Descartes: more right than wrong
Videtur quod sic. It would appear that in psychiatry the soul has to retreat in favor of the brain, that Cartesian dualism is false, that a truly causal treatment in psychiatry is treatment of a brain disorder. That viewpoint is misleading and counterproductive, in terms of both patient care and scientific progress.
Brain and mind are of equal status; communicating partners. They are unbreakably linked but made of fundamentally different “stuff.” Much can be achieved with technology. However, technology fails in understanding the mind. Man is more than a machine—he has spirit, will, and self-determination, all of which are impenetrable to biological technology.
Body and soul—brain and mind: two complex worlds mutually dependent and yet in many ways self-governing. Human nature truly is a natural wonder. It is not surprising that it is imagined (and believed by some) to be created in the image of God.
References
1. Damasio AR. Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: GP Putnam’s Sons; 1994.
2. Kendler KS. Toward a philosophical structure for psychiatry. Am J Psychiatry. 2005;162:433-440.
3. Swaab DF. Evolutionair gezien zijn we weinig meer dan wegwerpartikelen [evolutionarily seen, we are no more than throw away commodities]. In: Visser H, ed. Leven zonder God. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij LJ van Veen; 2003.
4. Kandel ER. A new intellectual framework for psychiatry. Am J Psychiatry. 1998;155:457-469.
5. Guze SB. Biological psychiatry: is there any other kind? Psychol Med. 1989;19:315-323.
6. van Praag HM. Seat of the divine: a biological “proof of God’s existence”? Verhagen PJ, van Praag HM, López-Ibor JJ Jr, et al, eds. Religion and Psychiatry: Beyond Boundaries. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons; 2010:523-540.
7. Swaab DF. Wij Zijn Ons Brein [We Are Our Brains]. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Contact; 2010.
8. Wolters G. Gedragscontrole. Vrije wil of neuronale processen [Behavioral regulation: free will or neuronal processes]. De Psycholog. 2005;24:23-29.
9. Genesis 2:7.
 This article originally appeared on:
APA Reference
Martin, L. (2012). Neuroscientific Mirages: Are We No More Than Our Brains?. Psych Central. Retrieved on September 26, 2012, from http://pro.psychcentral.com/2012/neuroscientific-mirages-are-we-no-more-than-our-brains/001049.html
Last reviewed: By John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on 18 Sep 2012
Tuesday, September 25 2012
September 24, 2012
A Call for Caution on Antipsychotic Drugs
By RICHARD A. FRIEDMAN, M.D.
You will never guess what the fifth and sixth best-selling prescription drugs are in the United States, so I’ll just tell you: Abilify and Seroquel, two powerful antipsychotics. In 2011 alone, they and other antipsychotic drugs were prescribed to 3.1 million Americans at a cost of $18.2 billion, a 13 percent increase over the previous year, according to the market research firm IMS Health.
Those drugs are used to treat such serious psychiatric disorders as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and severe major depression. But the rates of these disorders have been stable in the adult population for years. So how did these and other antipsychotics get to be so popular?
Antipsychotic drugs have been around for a long time, but until recently they were not widely used. Thorazine, the first real antipsychotic, was synthesized in the 1950s; not just sedating, it also targeted the core symptoms of schizophrenia, like hallucinations and delusions. Later, it was discovered that antipsychotic drugs also had powerful mood-stabilizing effects, so they were used to treat bipolar disorder, too.
Then, starting in 1993, came the so-called atypical antipsychotic drugs like Risperdal, Zyprexa, Seroquel, Geodon and Abilify. Today there are 10 of these drugs on the market, and they have generally fewer neurological side effects than the first-generation drugs.
Originally experts believed the new drugs were more effective than the older antipsychotics against such symptoms of schizophrenia as apathy, social withdrawal and cognitive deficits. But several recent large randomized studies, like the landmark Catie trial, failed to show that the new antipsychotics were any more effective or better tolerated than the older drugs.
This news was surprising to many psychiatrists — and obviously very disappointing to the drug companies.
It was also soon discovered that the second-generation antipsychotic drugs had serious side effects of their own, namely a risk of increased blood sugar, elevated lipids and cholesterol, and weight gain. They can also cause a potentially irreversible movement disorder called tardive dyskinesia, though the risk is thought to be significantly lower than with the older antipsychotic drugs.
Nonetheless, there has been a vast expansion in the use of these second-generation antipsychotic drugs in patients of all ages, particularly young people. Until recently, these drugs were used to treat a few serious psychiatric disorders. But now, unbelievably, these powerful medications are prescribed for conditions as varied as very mild mood disorders, everyday anxiety, insomnia and even mild emotional discomfort.
The number of annual prescriptions for atypical antipsychotics rose to 54 million in 2011 from 28 million in 2001, an 93 percent increase, according to IMS Health. One study found that the use of these drugs for indications without federal approval more than doubled from 1995 to 2008.
The original target population for these drugs, patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, is actually quite small: The lifetime prevalence of schizophrenia is 1 percent, and that of bipolar disorder is around 1.5 percent. Drug companies have had a powerful economic incentive to explore other psychiatric uses and target populations for the newer antipsychotic drugs.
The companies initiated dozens of clinical trials to test these drugs against depression and, more recently, anxiety disorders. Starting in 2003, the makers of several second-generation antipsychotics (also known as atypical neuroleptics) have received F.D.A. approval for the use of these drugs in combination with antidepressants to treat severe depression, which they trumpeted in aggressive direct-to-consumer advertising campaigns.
The combined spending on print and digital media advertising for these new antipsychotic drugs increased to $2.4 billion in 2010, up from $1.3 billion in 2007, according to Kantar Media. Between 2007 and 2011, more than 98 percent of all advertising on atypical antipsychotics was spent on just two drugs: Abilify and Seroquel, the current best sellers.
There is little in these alluring advertisements to indicate that these are not simple antidepressants but powerful antipsychotics. A depressed female cartoon character says that before she starting taking Abilify, she was taking an antidepressant but still feeling down. Then, she says, her doctor suggested adding Abilify to her antidepressant, and, voilà, the gloom lifted.
The ad omits critical facts about depression that consumers would surely want to know. If a patient has not gotten better on an antidepressant, for instance, just taking it for a longer time or taking a higher dose could be very effective. There is also very strong evidence that adding a second antidepressant from a different chemical class is an effective and cheaper strategy — without having to resort to antipsychotic medication.
A more recent and worrisome trend is the use of atypical antipsychotic drugs — many of which are acutely sedating and calming — to treat various forms of anxiety, like generalized anxiety disorder and even situational anxiety. A study last year found that 21.3 percent of visits to a psychiatrist for treatment of an anxiety disorder in 2007 resulted in a prescription for an antipsychotic, up from 10.6 percent in 1996. This is a disturbing finding in light of the fact that the data for the safety and efficacy of antipsychotic drugs in treating anxiety disorders is weak, to say nothing of the mountain of evidence that generalized anxiety disorder can be effectively treated with safer — and cheaper — drugs like S.S.R.I. antidepressants.
There are a small number of controlled clinical trials of antipsychotic drugs in generalized anxiety or social anxiety that have shown either no effect or inconsistent results. As a consequence, there is no F.D.A.-approved use of an atypical antipsychotic for any anxiety disorder.
Yet I and many of my colleagues have seen dozens of patients with nothing more than everyday anxiety or insomnia who were given prescriptions for antipsychotic medications. Few of these patients were aware of the potential long-term risks of these drugs.
The increasing use of atypical antipsychotics by physicians to treat anxiety suggests that doctors view these medications as safer alternatives to the potentially habit-forming anti-anxiety benzodiazepines like Valium and Klonopin. And since antipsychotics have rapid effects, clinicians may prefer them to first-line treatments like S.S.R.I. antidepressants, which can take several weeks to work.
Of course, physicians frequently use medications off label, and there is sometimes solid empirical evidence to support this practice. But presently there is little evidence that atypical antipsychotic drugs are effective outside of a small number of serious psychiatric disorders, namely schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and treatment-resistant depression.
Let’s be clear: The new atypical antipsychotic drugs are effective and safe. But even if these drugs prove effective for a variety of new psychiatric illnesses, there is still good reason for caution. Because they have potentially serious adverse effects, atypical antipsychotic drugs should be used when currently available treatments — with typically fewer side effects and lower costs — have failed.
Atypical antipsychotics can be lifesaving for people who have schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or severe depression. But patients should think twice — and then some — before using these drugs to deal with the low-grade unhappiness, anxiety and insomnia that comes with modern life.
Dr. Richard A. Friedman is a professor of psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medical College in Manhattan.
Wednesday, March 28 2012
The most difficult thing we treat in counseling is neglect. It is at the root of everything we work with in counseling. Neglect being defined as “the absence of something that was supposed to be there” as opposed to abuse, which is “the presence of something that was not supposed to be there”. Neglect leaves a hole, or “a hole in the hole”. Each of us has a soul hole. That God given hole in the middle of us that is designed to be filled with God’s love. It fills from the bottom up. The first or foundational layer is our parent’s love. Without that foundation something is missing. Our parent’s love is the first idea we have of what God’s love is. If either or both parents are missing due to neglect there is a hole in the hole. That hole must be filled. Parents do not always intentionally mean to leave a hole. It could be due to intentional or unintended physical neglect but it is usually emotional neglect and usually by the father or paternal neglect.
At the root of all addictions is neglect, usually paternal neglect. We hunger to be fulfilled. God intended the soul hole to be filled with His love. If it is not, through our parents neglecting their role either intentionally or unintentionally, it leaves a hole. We find ways to fill the hole; counterfeits for God’s love. Addictions are counterfeit ways we look for fulfillment to fill the hole that neglect leaves. The hole must be filled. It was designed to be filled with God’s love but if we don’t have God’s love or our parent’s love we find other ways to find fulfillment. At the root of addiction is neglect. Neglect is at the root of everything we work with in counseling.
Tuesday, February 21 2012
God is the God of circumstances and character; however, although He is in control of both we want Him to change our circumstances and instead He uses our circumstances to change us.
Tuesday, May 18 2010
A brief philosophy of counseling
When counseling I believe it is important to make a distinction between sin issues and satisfaction concerns. Sin issues can be defined as anything that separates us from God and man. More precisely in marital counseling I define sin issues as falling under one of five categories: adultery, abuse, addiction, abandonment, or apathy. If there are sin issues in a relationship they must be resolved first before turning to the issues of satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
The nice thing about sin is there is a clear remedy. We can confess our sins, seek repentance, seek forgiveness, and seek to make restoration. Sin has to do with moral issues or beliefs of right and wrong. Therefore, there are clear-cut distinctions that can be made in right and wrong behavior based upon our belief of what constitutes sin and if we accept the Bible as authority on sin, which I believe it is, then we can look to those areas that clearly identify either sins of omission or sins of commission which we can then seek forgiveness for in order to restore our relationship with God and our fellow man.
However, if we are not dealing with sin we are dealing with areas of satisfaction. By definition then these are not sin issues but issues that cause dissatisfaction or distress in the relationships that we have. Dissatisfaction or satisfaction is therefore not based upon what I am doing right or wrong but rather based upon feelings of preferred behavior. Either I or the person that I am in the relationship with has preferences as to how I should behave, but that behavior while preferred is not right or wrong since that would be by definition sinful behavior.
The reason that this becomes an important distinction to make is that relationships broken by sin must be restored by repentance and forgiveness. Well that can be an exceptionally difficult and painful process the burden is on each individual to both seek and grant forgiveness for immoral behavior which cannot be excused or negotiated. While the behavior that is dissatisfying since it is not morally wrong or sinful becomes a matter of preference or style that results in behavior that one or both individuals likes or prefers and therefore can't be negotiated. Sin is not negotiable but satisfaction is.
Satisfaction then becomes by definition any behavior that is engaged in which the other person or myself doesn't like but is not sinful. Satisfaction therefore is not based upon moral beliefs but upon preferences or experiential believes on how I prefer or expect people to behave including myself in different given situations. The formula for satisfaction then becomes satisfaction is equal to reality divided by expectations. Satisfaction then is a feeling that I or another individual has about my or their behavior based upon how I believe or how they believe based on their experience another person or themselves should behave.
Simply put the formulas look like this: satisfaction= reality/expectation or feelings = behavior/beliefs. Satisfaction then becomes negotiable once we understand what the desired behavior is as opposed to the current behavior observed. Since we are no longer dealing with sin we are dealing with amoral rather than moral or immoral issues and therefore everything becomes negotiable based upon our feelings of preferred behavior. In other words it's not wrong if I'm late to a meeting and I am not bad or sinful in my tardiness unless I am deliberately defying authority in which case perhaps I am engaged in sinful behavior, but rather by behavior by definition does not meet the expectations of the individuals with whom I'm meeting and therefore they are dissatisfied with they express as a feeling such as irritation, anger or frustration.
They're formula would look something like this: my anger (satisfaction/feeling) = tardiness (reality/behavior)/timeliness (expectation/beliefs based on experience) all which are negotiable since they are not sinful.
This then leads nicely into the next formula which is behavior= ability x motivation which asked the question what is the specific desired behavior that I would expect, prefer, or feel satisfied with and does the individual have the ability, do they actually know what is expected and how to do it, and do they have the motivation or willingness to do it.
With this definition it is important to pull behavior out of the above formula for satisfaction and clearly define what is the expected behavior, acknowledging that it is not sinful since it doesn't fall in the sin category, and therefore can be negotiated if the behavior can be clearly and specifically defined so that someone could observe and measure it.
Monday, November 09 2009
When Layoffs and Fear Enter the Workplace
11.8.09 by Glynn Young
Article:
At work, we started blogging on our internal website about coming layoffs.
They were announced in June, and then a corporate cone of silence descended. Employees would begin finding out two
months later, in late August, but the silence was becoming stifling. Fear had entered the workplace.
There was a time when silence was official policy. But that’s over. The internet, social media, and new workplace
expectations and realities have swept official policies away. Announce a layoff, and expect to see it tweeted on Twitter.
The employer-employee contract died in the 1980s. We may yearn for the days of two-way loyalty, but they’re gone, swept
away by the addiction of repeated downsizings. There’s only forward.
One of the things my team is responsible for is the corporate intranet, including news and blogs. We talked about what to
do. If we can’t answer people’s most important question—do I have a job?—could we at least indicate that it was okay to
talk about it?
Can You Blog Your Layoff?
My people knew that I had been laid off from a job with another company in 1999. They asked me what happened, and
what I’d experienced. I told them.
One of them said, “Can you blog it? Can you blog what happened to you?”
Well, sure, I could do that. I could also think about the possible reactions and potential repercussions.
But then I thought about all of the people and families, worrying about the what-ifs at home, seeing the lousy economic
news getting worse. If I blogged my own experience, it still wouldn’t answer their critical questions, but it might say it’s
okay to talk about it, and we all share the same fears and concerns. And one thought kept running through my mind:
Jesus never hesitated to say what needed to be said, to anyone.
Love your neighbor as yourself.
I talked with my boss and peers. I got the green light. I blogged.
The first post was about what happened to me in 1999—how it happened and how I reacted. And what I did to prevent the
layoff from controlling me. The second post was about the questions I got from my family. The third was about a layoff
when I wasn’t affected, but a close friend was.
I talked about shame, embarrassment, feelings of inadequacy, and questions from my children (like “Didn’t you work hard
enough? Do we have to move?”). And then the ultimate understanding that my job, and the loss of my job, did not define
my value. Because my faith defined who I was, and because I tried to practice my faith at church, at home, and on the job,
it was my response to my layoff that defined who I was.
People Respond When You Shoot Straight
I can’t say my blog posts went viral, but it was something like that. Within three days, more than 2,500 people had read the
first post. Comments got posted. One employee posted a blog himself. I received emails, phone calls, and visits. People
stopped and thanked me in the cafeteria. The reactions were fairly uniform—it’s okay to talk about this; it’s okay to talk
about what we’re afraid of. We’re all in this together.
The day after the first post, the company operator called me, asking me where to direct a reporter who was calling about a
story. I gave her the name and number. She thanked me, and then hesitated.
“I read your blog,” she said. She paused. “It was good.” She paused again. “Thank you.”
In the third blog post, I talked about a time in 1992, when a close friend found out he was losing his job. He called me, and
it was hard to imagine that my confident, focused, intense friend was devastated, depressed, and ashamed. And it got
worse.
Layoffs Can Leave People Ostracized
We met in the company cafeteria the next day. I was waiting for him at a table. He walked over, lunch tray in his hands,
and stood there.
“Are you sure you want to be seen with me?” he asked.
I thought he was joking. He wasn’t. His entire department had stopped speaking to him. He had to stay in the office for the
next 45 days, and he was effectively ostracized.
I was stunned. So I did the only thing I knew to do. I stood and hugged him. He cried. What a scene that made, right in the
cafeteria.
I told that story, with this point: I promised myself right there that I would never do to anyone what had been done to this
man. And I urged the readers of 17 years later to make the same promise. I said that I knew it was awkward, and if you
didn’t know what to say to someone who had just lost their job, try this: “How can I help you?” And help them network, be
a reference, make some phone calls, and follow up with them later.
In other words, love them as yourself. The odds are good that you will be one of them, some day.
The People Who Don’t Lose Their Jobs
Layoffs not only affect the people who lose their jobs. They also affect the people who don’t. And I’m not talking about
so-called “survivor guilt.” No, what usually follows a layoff program is a reorganization, changes in workloads, changes in
team structure, and often changes in team leaders.
Team leaders play the pivotal role, and it’s difficult, because they often don’t know the answers to a lot of the questions.
How will we work together? Do I have more work to do? Am I expected to work longer hours? Will we stop doing some
things? How do we work with other teams? The team that provides the monthly statistics is gone —where do we get the
information?
If we’re believers, we don’t leave our faith at the corporate door. While a layoff doesn’t differentiate between those who
believe and those who don’t (the rain falls on both alike), the response of each can differentiate them. It’s what Tony
Dungy, head coach of the Super Bowl-winning Indianapolis Colts, said in his book Uncommon: Finding Your Path to
Significance: don’t let the bad things that happen to you define who you are as a person. The key is how you respond to
those bad things.
Questions for personal reflection, online discussion, or small groups:
• Have you had to lay a person or people off as part of a general downsizing? What thought processes do you go
through? How do you decide, and what do you do when your decisions are not obvious?
• If a downsizing has been announced, how do you plan? What do you do, if anything at all? What should you do?
• What happens when a close friend or relative loses a job—how do you respond? A typical reaction people have in
this situation is to feel highly uncomfortable being around someone who’s lost a job. Why is that?
• Does a believer have any additional responsibilities or accountabilities that a nonbeliever wouldn’t have in a
situation like this?
• What if you “make it through” a downsizing and keep your job—what does the workplace look like? Do you do
anything differently?
Copyright © 2001-2009 H. E. Butt Foundation. All rights reserved.
www.TheHighCalling.org
Friday, September 18 2009
When I counsel I find two simple formulas especially helpful. The first one is satisfaction = to reality/expectations, which can be changed to feelings = behavior/beliefs. In this formula the individual's feelings or level of satisfaction is determined by how their reality meets with their expectations. If I expect something to happen, expect someone to behave or act a certain way, or expect a particular outcome in my life and that is what is happening I feel good or satisfied. If my reality doesn't meet my expectations I feel bad or sad or disappointed or dissatisfied. When my spouse does what I want her to do or acts or behaves in the particular manner I expect her to do I am happy or satisfied. When she doesn't I'm disappointed or dissatisfied.
The other formula is a component of the first. It is behavior or performance = ability x motivation. My behavior or my performance is a function of my ability to do something multiplied by my motivation to do something. Sometimes I have the ability but I'm not motivated. Sometimes I may be motivated but not have the ability.
When we put these two formulas together we get some very interesting results. First, if I examine my feelings and why I'm satisfied or dissatisfied I find areas in my life where I feel happy and areas where I'm not so happy. When I examine my relationships with others, for example, I find places where I'm satisfied and where I'm not satisfied. If I examine a particularly key or significant relationship I may find some areas where I am not satisfied with how the other person is acting or behaving. Therefore, my satisfaction = their behavior/my expectations. When they don't meet my expectations of them I'm unhappy, disappointed, or dissatisfied with them or more specifically with their behavior. When I examine their behavior I need to ask if they are not meeting my expectations because they cannot or will not. Are they unable to perform the behavior I desire or unwilling to do so? Human nature being what it is I usually vent my frustration with the belief that they are unwilling when in fact that may not be the case at all.
What if they are unable? Do they know what I desire? Do they know that I'm dissatisfied? Have I clearly communicated my dissatisfaction in a clear way that describes what I desire in their behavior or am I just angry and upset? What if I could step back and taking time to think examine their behavior, my beliefs or expectations and determine first what am I upset about? Is my expectation realistic? Could they do it if they had to and do they truly know what I desire? If they could and they are not is there some other logically reason they are not motivated to do what I want? Does it perhaps require more time, money, or energy then they have to give right now or some other change in their behavior that they are unwilling to change or not in agreement with me that the change is necessary and therefore we may need to spend some time communicating, which will involve listening, understanding, accepting and coming to some type of agreement.
If I take the time to work through the formulas myself or with my folks in counseling all sorts of good things happen including increasing understanding and awareness of my expectations, my behavior, and my beliefs, which are the only things in my control. Therefore, if I change my behavior, my beliefs, or my expectations, I can influence and increase my level of satisfaction or happiness by changing my feelings. Interesting.
Helping Hearts Heal,
Dr. Dan L. Boen
Thursday, September 17 2009
We are now using Twitter on our web site www.cccoi.org. Daily I review pertinent articles from the field of psychology and Christianity. Those that I believe have merit for our site or our readers I select and post on Twitter. These articles show up as posts in the Twitter box found on the lower right hand column of our home page. When you log into our home page at www.cccoi.org you can read any of these articles that interest you and that you find relevant to either your life or work.
Some of the articles are especially relevant and timely for the work we do with people in counseling. You will see across the top of our web site several areas. Each area from Welcome, Personal, Relational, Parental, Communal, and Spiritual contain sections, which can be accessed from a drop down menu. Each section contains timely articles, links to other web sites, information, and sometimes videos that we have found especially helpful to people in counseling or seeking information regarding mental health or counseling from either a secular or Christian perspective.
We have tried to post a variety of sources and information that is screened for content, relevancy, helpfulness and appropriateness to the section assigned. For example, if you are a couple needing help with communication or working with a couple needing help with communication you can go to the Relational Area and under the section marked Communication find a number of sources, articles, and videos designed to help couples improve their communication. If you are an individual dealing with depression or working with someone who is or thinks they might be depressed you can go to the Personal Area and under the section marked Depression find a number of interesting and helpful articles and resources for help with depression. If you are looking for a way to relax and unwind or refocus you might look under the Meditation section under the Spiritual Area or read the Daily Scripture provided to us by Daily Scripture.
We have tried to make the web site easy to use but as comprehensive as we can in dealing with the problems of every day life to severe mental disorders and crises while identifying help from many sources and resources. So if you want to take our site for a test drive whether to just follow the Twitter postings for a while or to search for something more specific in your life or work feel free to do so. After all it is free and accessible and available. If you find that there is something you are looking for that you think would be helpful to you and others and you cannot find it on our site let me know and we will look for it and try to incorporate it into the site. You can email me at danboen@aol.com.
Thanks for looking and enjoy!
Helping Hearts Heal,
Dr. Dan L. Boen
Saturday, August 15 2009
When do you rest? Fatigue in Modern Society is a book written by Paul Tournier several years ago. Dr.Tounier was a Swiss physician who practiced primarily as a psychotherapist. His small little book is interesting foreshadowing as it did modern society's tendency to go faster and faster with less and less rest. Today the average vacation in the United States is down to only eight days, the least in the industrialized countries of the world. And resting on those days is often interrupted with cellphones and emails in an attempt to make ourselves available and iindispensable. Jesus, although a tireless worker, was one of the best resters. He often took himself away from the maddening and demanding crowds to be alone with his Father and to rest and restore his spirit. I often think it is interesting and unusual to think of Jesus as God needing to get away to be with God. Almost sounds schizophrenic when you think about it until your realize he was also fully man as well as fully God and therefore subject to all the mental and physical fatigue of his daily life. Hebrews the fourth chapter talks about entering into God's rest. Sounds good to me. Six days God worked and then He rested. When do you rest?
Helping Hearts Heal,
Dr. Dan L. Boen
Friday, August 14 2009
When Peter got out of the boat I wonder if he had any idea what he was really doing when he was walking towards Jesus. The very sight of someone walking on the water had to blow his mind. We know he was impulsive, i.e. used the sword to cut off the guys ear when they came for Jesus, told Jesus he was the Son of God and later he shouldn't go to die. Do you think maybe he got in over his head literally and figuratively before he knew what he was doing? As long as he fixed his eyes on Jesus he was one of only two people we know of that ever walked on water. When he took his eyes off he went under. Even though he went down Jesus didn't let him drown. When we take our eyes off Jesus we too will go down under the cares of life and the pressures and stress of just trying to make it day by day, but if we look up He is there and He cares. And even if we don't have the strength to look up He won't let us drown.
|
