Monday Miscellany: APA, Anxiety, Animal Parties

1. I complained about psychology having TWO organizations called APA: the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association. Nope. Shea pointed out the American Psychoanalytic Association and the American Psychopathological Association.

2. Scott reviews treatments for anxiety. He offers one CBT for anxiety workbook, but I’ll also suggest When Panic Attacks, Mastery of Anxiety and Panic, and When Perfect Isn’t Good Enough, all three of which I have either personal or near-personal experience with and have gotten positive reviews from friends and acquaintances.

3. Firsthand accounts of selective mutism.

4. Kind of weirded out by the ‘hunh, would you look at that’ tone of this article about the intense level of sexual harassment that kilt-wearing waiters were getting.

5. Clothing designed to accommodate motor impairments and texture sensitivity.

6. Saving premature children via a circus sideshow.

7. I was researching the night before my trip to Amsterdam last week and discovered the Party For the Animals which, unfortunately, is not as fun as it sounds. However! It is the only political party for animal rights with seats in a national government.

8. We could regrow livers.


Stuff I Read This Week

(I made one international flight, so the numbers here are a little ridiculous)

Fun Home, Alison Bechdel
Oh, my god.

At the Water’s Edge: A Novel, Sara Gruen
I actually finished this book because it was so jarring. So little plot development in a fun way? I couldn’t remember why I put it on hold, and was starting to think that it was a lesbian romance (the main character was becoming less interested in her husband, and the only developed character was a maid). Then BANG, sudden male love interest and also love that apparently had been blossoming! Then BANG! Death! Revival! Loch Ness monsters! Ghosts! Rollercoaster from start to surprise lordship.

The Night Watch, Sara Waters
Bittersweet tales of queer women.

My Story, Elizabeth Smart

Lost Girls: The Cleveland Abductions, John Glatt
(apparently I was on a kidnapping kick)

Monday Miscellany: Starlings, Spies, Sanderson

1. Look, let’s lead with the best. Shakespeare is why starlings are an American nuisance.

2. Illustrating weird laws.

3. Brandon Sanderson’s magical systems are among my favorite.

4. This advice is also good, but I’m mainly linking because it introduced me to the HULK-KU or, haiku written as if Incredible Hulk.

ACOUSTIC TRIO

HULK SMASH BAD GUITAR PLAYER

ACOUSTIC DUO

5. Pessimism traps.


The Upside of Stress: Why Stress Is Good for You, and How to Get Good at It, Kelly McGonigal
Excellent and personally useful. You can see my highlights here.

Operation Nemesis: The Assassination Plot that Avenged the Armenian Genocide, Eric Boghosian
Fascinating; also a genocide I know relatively little about.

Liar, Temptress, Soldier, Spy: Four Women Undercover in the Civil War, Karen Abbott
This was fun. Constructed almost entirely from primary sources.

Monday Miscellany: Lipstick, Lifeguards, Lesbians

1. Examining American culture from a distance is hard to do. Enter, Nacirema. Gawk at their strange rituals.

2. Anger management curriculum for prisoners.

3. Reducing cheating in science—better alternatives than trying to change all of the incentives.

4. Lifeguard Would Save Drowning Man, But Maybe The Man’s Death Will Inspire A Proletariat Revolution. Making Things Better Just Delays The Destruction of Capitalism.

5. The ‘glass closet‘:

Queer women are simultaneously invisible and hyper-visible. We’re invisible, though increasingly less so, in the sense that we are almost always presumed straight until proven otherwise, that our girlfriends become our “gal pals,” that our sexual experiences become “just college girls experimenting” or “just girls trying to get guys’ attention.” We’re invisible in the sense that you almost never see queer female relationships in shows or movies or books that aren’t About Gay People (such as Glee and The L Word). (Even with shows like Glee, though, queer female fans often had to fight for that representation, to fight for characters like them to be treated seriously.) […]

Yet at the same time, in some contexts, queer women are hyper-visible. I think of the glass toilet stall from my dream again when I remember how I’ve felt out in public with my female partners. Queerness is a “marked” identity, which means that sometimes it’s way more obvious and noticed and remarked-upon than straightness. When I’m out with a boyfriend, nobody pays us any particular mind. Sure, sometimes people might notice us and think, “What a cute couple!” (or maybe I’m just flattering myself, but really, people have this thought about straight couples sometimes), but certainly nobody’s going to stare, let alone point fingers or giggle or glare disapprovingly.

6. I wrote about the distinction between global and local validity of feelings, and Miri responded with a piece on the idea of rationality and validity of feelings.

Irrational and invalid aren’t the same thing. We can go wrong when we believe that any emotion that’s irrational must therefore be invalid, but we also go wrong when we believe that any emotion that’s valid must also be rational. (I think the latter error is made less often, but it’s true that some people feel that because emotions are “valid,” they must simply accept them as they are.)

In social circles where rationality is very highly valued, it can become difficult to tell others about how you’re feeling when you think that your feelings are irrational. Sometimes we fear judgmental responses from others (“But that makes no sense! Of course I don’t hate you! How could you possibly believe something like that?”). Other times, we may trust that people will be supportive, but we still don’t want to come across as someone who has a lot of “silly” or “irrational” feelings.

7. Lipstick advice is so much better when it’s framed as adult crayons.

8. This book recommendation is going up here, rather than in the Stuff I Read section: The Power of a Positive No is one of the most useful social/work/life advice books I’ve read in a while. The focus is setting boundaries effectively, while both making yourself feel okay with your decisions and nurturing relationships with people. I particularly liked that it focused on specific questions I could ask myself to figure out what to say, and concrete formats for saying no.

9. This is good.

Do you want to impress me with your moral backbone?  Then go and find a group that almost all of your Facebook friends still consider it okay, even praiseworthy, to despise and mock, for moral failings that either aren’t failings at all or are no worse than the rest of humanity’s.  (I promise: once you start looking, it shouldn’t be hard to find.)  Then take a public stand for that group.

 


Thank You For Arguing, Jay Heinrichs
A classic, a little Dark Arts.

Boy Meets Girl: Say Hello to Courtship, Joshua Harris
Look, I read I Kissed Dating Goodbye as a kid, I had to read the second one.

Tipping the Velvet, Sarah Waters
Early 19th century lesbians in England and on the stage. Slightly fantastical.

The Magicians, Lev Grossman
Well, that was whimsy that got horrifyingly dark. (In the best way.)

Your Emotions Are Locally (But Maybe Not Globally) Valid And Other Terrible Inspirational Posters

Photo credit to  Emm Roy

Photo credit to
Emm Roy

Over on tumblr, I wrote a little about how I have a hard time resolving my sadness because I get caught up too early in the question of Is This Emotion Justified, and never make it to dealing with the emotions. Ogingat asked if I had specific opinions on whether or not emotions should be justified.  I, uh, tried to answer and accidentally a very long blog post.

[epistemic status: I keep arguing with myself, but cautionarily endorse this for at least the next week or so.]

My answer is roughly:

1) It’s a really good idea to determine if your emotions are based in reality.

2) Also, a lot of people use this as a proxy for not actually responding to their emotions.

My overarching belief is that emotions don’t need justification, choices in response to emotions do, and patterns of emotions should always be run through the Is This Justified test.

I have these heuristics, (for a loose definition of rules) that I think are useful. Sometimes they conflict and have fights in my head.

In the moment, focus on naming the emotion, less on the causal factors.
Sometimes I am sad because I forgot to eat, sometimes I am sad because someone hurt me, and sometimes I am sad because my brain is a jerk.

In pretty much all of these cases, I should treat my brain like it’s experiencing emotion, check my physical state, and then if it’s not an obviously physical problem spurring my feeling (sleep, food, water, comfort of clothing, pain), I should proceed in treating that emotion. For the Sad state, I should take a walk with music, tell my boyfriend, take a break from work, etc. This is true if the sadness is because my brain decided Tuesday at 2pm was Sad Time and also true if someone I know died.

Emotions are generally Your Responsibility, this goes double for actions in response to emotions. Sometimes the responsible thing to do is to tell someone else about your feelings, or stop being around the person who always makes you feel unintelligent, or enlist help from someone else in determining what the right decision is. But in general, feelings you have are your responsibility to respond to. (Sometimes ‘responding’ is never, ever speaking to that person again.)

I don’t think it’s terrible to feel really irritable for no reason (in fact, this is sometimes a symptom of depression). But behavior in response to the feeling needs justification.

Having [negative] emotions about your current emotions is usually unhelpful, especially when they’re as strong or stronger than the root emotion.
[Credit to Chana for the original formulation of this]

Examples:
Feeling (a)guilty that you feel (b)sad!
Feeling (a)angry that you are (b)depressed!
Feeling (a)humiliated that you felt (b)jealous!

For one, it’s hard to address two emotions at once, and I am fairly confident that the set of (a) emotions don’t generally decrease instances of (b) emotions—but they do make it a lot harder to talk to other people about your (b) emotions. If you feel sad now, and also you feel like you shouldn’t feel sad, it seems unlikely you’ll be able to do something to make yourself feel less sad. And I think the you that feels guilty for being sad, and the alt-universy you who just feels sad with no guilty have the same goal: be less sad, stat.

Example that happens to me lots, and usually makes me feel very bad: Susan approaches me (or I notice and ask Susan) and it comes out that she is feeling guilty, because she’s angry I broke up with her pretty abruptly.

So I think we can agree that if I didn’t want to be in a relationship with Susan, I should not be dating her, and the best way to cause this is for me to break up with her. And I think most people would agree that you shouldn’t say with someone for a while just so you can artificially create a fading relationship.

I think we can also agree that when people break up with you, it sucks, and being upset is a pretty reasonable reaction. (We might have ideas about how to behave with that upsetness—we usually agree that revenge and emotional blackmail are bad, but that being upset makes sense)

But if all Susan can do is tell me that she feels guilty for feeling upset with me, then I’m in the role of telling her that her negative feelings are okay, that it’s normal to not like being near me for a while, etc etc etc. It’s not that I disagree with these statements! I don’t! But you’ll notice we’re never progressing to the root emotion—at best I can hope that Susan will move to disliking me in a guilt-free way. I also don’t get to discuss or defend my actions. I’m too busy telling Susan that it’s okay to hate me for a while to make the case for eventually not hating me.

Then what about emotions that are unhelpful or not grounded in reality? (And how would you even figure out which are or aren’t?)

There’s a both useful and terrible phrase in the mental health/social justice community which is that ‘your emotions are valid’.

On one hand, it’s endorsing something I strongly believe—that the emotions you are having right now are real and worth looking at and caring for, and that this is an essential process for moving forward.

On the other hand, I don’t think I or other people who use this phrase actually want to take it as far as it can be taken. We usually have Feelings about people who experience revulsion in response to race or gender characteristics. We have Feelings about Alice when she is very angry that Bob, who she didn’t want to date, develops a crush on John instead.

In short, we’re averse to calling those ‘valid’ feelings.

But before we explore that, a horror story from my profession!

A few decades ago psychologists believed that you could recover repressed memories via therapy. Specifically, memories of child sexual abuse.  There was a movement to recover these repressed memories (coinciding with the panic about Satanic Ritual Abuse). Many of those memories were false. Created. Horrific, but remnants of our brains’ ability to create nightmares and falsify recall.

And I think we all agree that many of these these children, now adults, were not sexually abused by the people they accused. They didn’t watch ritualized killings or rapes. Many of them didn’t experience sexual abuse they were recalling in offices, on couches. But we also know that it’s extremely hard to introspect and know which memories are completely accurate. We know that false memories are vivid.

And as those children and adults deal with the fallout, as they perhaps experience false flashbacks, or have triggers, we could say “Well, you obviously shouldn’t be having those emotions/flashbacks/, they’re not representative of reality. You’re not really a rape victim, stop feeling bad.”

And if we stopped for just a second, or read any of the facial cues of the people listening with horror, we would realize this is an asshole move. It’s true, their reactions to false memories are well, reactions to false memories. We could say that their emotions are valid in some sense: they are reacting to memories and trauma that their brain believes to be real. But we also could say they aren’t valid: their memories are based in completely made up stuff.

Here’s where I like the global/local distinction. Instead of “your emotions are valid” as an approach, “your emotions are locally valid, check back later about global validity”.

(I make terrible slogans.)

Local validity: I am experiencing [X] emotion. (If known) this is an emotion I am having in response to [Y]/a real feeling that’s occurring in response to something. It currently exists for me. I might want to do look it full on and maybe do something about it.

Local validity is about noticing and responding to your current emotions as if they’re real emotions that are happening to you. Global validity is about reflecting about the trends and patterns of emotions and how well you think they’re grounded in a realistic view of the world.

Global validity: I had That Emotion in response to Those Events. Does my read of the events fit with the outside view of things? Would I tell someone in my situation to go ahead and have my same emotional response?

Do I normally want to have That Emotion in response to Those Events?
What are patterns I can find? Do I like those?
Do they align with the sort of person I’d like to be?
What non-judgemental* information about myself can I get?
What do I reasonably assume I could do to change, if anything?
What are the tradeoffs of changing my emotional reaction to events like Those Events?

*I say non-judgemental, because you want to start by collecting information. Get stuck in spirals of guilt won’t let you move towards planning what to do next.

Again, all of these principles conflict and create weird edge cases that cause me to edit and adjust and add exceptions and caveats. Ultimately, I try to balance my interest in the truth and aligning my behavior with a true understanding of the world with my brain’s interest in using those values to avoid dealing with difficult emotions.

Monday Miscellany: Body Dysmorphia, Bao, Bad Sleep

1. This longread on GiveDirectly, a charity which makes cash transfers directly to people in poverty, is excellent. Most interesting thing I learned: GiveDirectly uses salivary cortisol levels to track stress in recipients.

2. The title of this article on restraining orders made me think it was going to be entirely about how unhelpful they can be, and it did make that case. But it also explained a case for when restraining orders are an extremely good idea; one of many steps in making yourself safer.

3. The Tao of Bao: A Randomised Controlled Trial Examining the Effect of Steamed Bun Consumption on Night-Call Inpatient Course and Mortality. (The background is fascinating)

4. Body dysmorphic disorder and mirrors, a qualitative study.

5. Social psychology needs more political diversity (and less confirmation bias).

6. Prison stories: Kalief Browder, who spent three years on Rikers Island without a conviction, commits suicide. Better information than Orange is the New Black about women in prison. (h/t Julia Wise)

7. Lovely article on what we can and can’t get from the Zimbardo prison experiment.

8. A pill with the unusually adorable brand name “Minipress” might help with nightmares in PTSD.


What I read this week:
The Woman Who Would Be King, Kara Cooney
Yeah, I just really don’t like reading about Ancient Egypt. Even badass women in Ancient Egypt.

Kushiel’s Scion, Kushiel’s Justice, Jacqueline Carey
This book series continues to be extraordinary. Best fiction I’ve discovered this year. Excellent for Tamora Pierce fans.

God’s Favorite, Lawrence Wright
Historical fiction about Noriega’s Panama.

Monday Miscellany: Superheroes, Social Surveys, Sketches

1. Ex Machina is a strange movie to me already, because the trailer is quotes I see on my facebook feed regularly, interspersed with action scenes. On the other hand, this Easter egg is pretty great.

2. The list of inventors killed by their own inventions is disconcertingly long.

3. The conflict between wanting to use donated organs and end-of-life care, told through one donor with ALS.

The more difficult issue relates to his other organs. W.B.’s prognosis is poor: his doctors indicate that in the near future, he will no longer be able to breathe for himself, and will need a tracheostomy and a ventilator to live. At this point, some ALS patients forgo further life support and succumb to their disease. But there is currently no way to end one’s life in this manner without jeopardizing one’s organs and, with them, the chance to save other lives.

Organ transplantation is still relatively new. When the first successful kidney transplant (between identical twins) was performed, in 1954, the procedure was quite radical; the surgeon, Joseph Murray, would win a Nobel Prize for his work. Transplantation of kidneys from deceased donors had limited success until the early 1980s, when a new drug, cyclosporine, made it easier to suppress recipients’ immune systems.

From the earliest days of transplantation, surgeons subscribed to an informal ethical norm known as the “dead-donor rule,” holding that organ procurement should not cause a donor’s death. In practice, this meant waiting until patients were by all measures completely dead—no heartbeat, no blood pressure, no respiration—to remove any vital organs. Unfortunately, few organs were still transplantable by this point, and those that were transplanted tended to have poor outcomes by today’s standards.

4. There was a study on gay canvassers, claiming that just a ten minute conversation with someone who was gay could change people’s minds significantly in favor of equality/acceptance. Yeah, probably not. Fake data. In practice, I’m not very doubtful that exposure to people who are in subgroups increases acceptance of those subgroups, however, it almost definitely doesn’t work as quickly as claimed.

5. On chocolate, health, and why you should read more than one study. Also I completely object to the claim that bitter chocolate tastes bad and would like to bring Wicked Dark to everyone’s attention.

6. Learning about the General Social Survey, a massive dataset on American demographics and sociology, was easily the best thing I got out of Stats For Psychology in undergraduate. I learned to search/use the information on the Berkeley site, but there’s also the GSS Data Explorer, which I hadn’t seen before. Luke has a tutorial series starting here.

7. How accurately can you draw the relationship between parental income and college attendance? The NYT will let you give it a whirl. I am very firmly in favor of more calibration testing for real-world relationships between variables.

8. Exploring the ethics of using children in psychology research.

9. Superheroes should double-up per identity.

10. There is not only one correct way to die. Counterpoint to the Sandra Bem article I posted in the last link roundup.


Stuff I read this week:

Kushiel’s Avatar/Kushiel’s Chosen, Jacqueline Carey

A Small Corner of Hell, Ana Politkovskaya

Monday Miscellany: Baddies, Bems, Broken Windows

1. The Open Philanthropy Project talks with Melanie Smith about current theories and directions in Alzheimer’s treatment [pdf]. It’s a field of personal interest to me, and relevant to the most recent controversy about a link between anticholinergic drugs and dementias.

2. Also on the topic of Alzheimer’s…I’ve written about members of the Bem family before, but this article on the death of Sandy Bem is especially haunting.

Emily was angry at her father for speaking so pragmatically about her mother’s death. She was angry too at her mother for choosing a date that was so soon, and at her mother’s inner circle for allowing all of it to happen. That night, she sat with her parents and Robyn while they discussed the situation. Emily felt as though she was defending her mother’s life against everyone who wanted her to end it.

“You’re just doing the math,” she told Daryl. “It’s like you’re just calculating: Judging by the rate of decline of X amount, you can predict that by time Y this will be the case. But you can’t!”

“O.K., so maybe not June,” Daryl said, backing off. He had spent his life avoiding conflict. “We just thought that with your mother turning 70 on June 22, that might be a good time.”

“Well, that’s nuts,” Emily said. “How can you just pick a month like that?”

“What month did we say, again?” Sandy asked.

“June,” Daryl said.

“Why don’t you just say August?” Emily said. “It could just as easily be August as June.”

“What month did we say, again?” Sandy asked.

“June,” Daryl said.

“August, June — you can’t just draw an equation,” Emily said.

“What month did we say, again?” Sandy asked.

3. Taylor & Francis made all (??) of their research on HIV/AIDS free online. If you’ve ever tried to wrest a journal article free from the jaws of T&F without turning over your firstborn child, you know how significant this is.

4. “I think one of the most important rules of ethics is that you might be the baddies.

5. Access times for eating disorder treatment are loooong. Like, four years long.

6. Testing the ‘broken windows’ theory.

The most fun, and incredible, set of experiments I’ve learned about are the ones run by Siegwart Lindenberg and Linda Steg and colleagues at Groningen University. Despite having an unusually high prior*, I’m honestly stunned by their results, both in terms of the sheer size of the effects they’re finding, and the stability of those large effects across a great number of slightly different situations.

They’re studying, essentially, the broken windows theory. This theory hypothesizes that if there is evidence of some law/norm breaking behavior, that will cause people to break other laws/norms at a higher rate.** This is not due to inferences about levels of enforcement, because the findings are just as strong in purely normative (prescriptive, in addition to proscriptive) settings. In a world of marginally statistically significant results, it’s a thrill to see such a long list of replications with huge and extremely statistically significant findings.


Things I read this week:

The Paying Guests, Sara Waters
EXCELLENT queer fiction that wasn’t written to be an Issues Story.

Thirteen Days in September, Lawrence Wright