How Do You Think?

Undesirable behaviors occur for many reasons.  In order to reduce problematic (negative) behaviors we first must come to an understanding of why they are occurring.  I can’t emphasize this enough – UNDERSTANDING WHY IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING.  The WHY guides WHAT WE DO.  As we always tell our staff “In order to reduce a problematic (negative) behavior, we must first understand why the child is doing it, and then we must change our behavior accordingly.”  There is almost always something going on in the child’s world that spurs on negative behaviors.   Many of those things, we as the adults can, and must change.

There are common themes among the reasons why children misbehave. These include:

1. ESCAPE/AVOIDANCE – Often children misbehave in order to escape or avoid having to do something undesirable (e.g., having to come inside after playing outside, having to sit to eat, having to go to bed, having to do school work).
2. TO GET ATTENTION – Some negative behaviors occur because the child wants attention and doesn’t care whether it’s positive or negative attention. Sometimes negative behaviors occur because s/he is not being attended to for positive behavior, and/or the child actually enjoys getting adults upset.  One common example: there is nothing more fun than running away from an adult and being chased. 
3. TO GET AN ITEM OR ACTIVITY – Some children discover that if they misbehave they get what they want. The classic example is throwing a temper tantrum at a store to get a toy or a piece of candy.
4. TO GET SENSORY INPUT – The negative behavior may itself provide enjoyable feelings (e.g., running, climbing, and hand flapping or rocking may be naturally reinforcing – they just feel good or make them feel better).

It is important to determine whether any or all of these are occurring in such a way that encourages the problematic behavior.  But it is also important to understand whether:

1. The child understands that the negative behavior is unacceptable
2. The child understands what to do instead of the negative behavior (e.g., has the skills to do what we want to see)
3. The child has rational control over his/her behavior
4. Our expectations are appropriate for the child (e.g., Can s/he do what we want him or her to do?, Are we expecting too much?, Is the circumstance too overwhelming for the child?, etc.)
5. There is sufficient motivation/incentive for the child to do what we want? Is the reinforcement for the negative behavior greater than the reinforcement available for what we want to see?

Whenever I am asked to help staff or parents address a negative behavior – I always investigate all of the above issues.  I also look into the following things:

1. Have there been any major changes in the child’s life (e.g., changes in living circumstances including where home is, the birth of a sibling, parental discord or separation, an absence or illness of a major care provider, more stress at home, and a major change in the routine of life)? It is important to note that even changes in daylight savings time or the chaos of the holidays can be very disruptive.  Another major change, as is certainly the case now, includes major breaks from school.
2. Is the child suffering with an illness or unusual discomfort (e.g., an infection, GI Issues, dental issues)?
3. When did the behavior start?
4. What is the trend (e.g., is it getting worse)?
5. When is the problem behavior occurring the most and when is it least likely to occur?

It is important to investigate all of these issues and to do so thoroughly.  Only through such an analysis are we likely to come to an understanding of WHY the behavior is occurring and what we can effectively do to reduce the behavior.  Here are some Key Thoughts to keep in mind as you conduct an analysis of your child’s problematic behavior:

1. Always try to look at the above issues from the child’s perspective
2. Journal the behavior using the following guidelines on the Negative Behavior Journal
3. LIMIT YOU EFFORTS TO ONE BEHAVIOR AT A TIME.

The following guidelines are designed to help you journal the negative behavior.  I highly advise that you document each occurrence of the negative behavior on the Negative Behavior Journal immediately following the behavior, paying special attention to each of the following:

Setting/Activity:

• Specify:
  • The physical location of the difficulty
  • The activity the child was involved in prior to the difficulty
• Pay attention to the things going on that likely affect the child (e.g., demands, environmental stimuli, automatically reinforcing behaviors)

Antecedent:

• The antecedent is the stimuli or event that happened immediately prior to the negative behavior. It is important to note that the connection between the antecedent and the negative behavior are not always immediately clear.  Journal the behavior over a period of time (at least one week).
• Examples of possible Antecedents (triggers):
  • A desirable activity was terminated (you took away something fun)
  • A desirable activity asked for by the child, but you said “No.”
  • A demand for work was placed on the child
  • Something aversive (unpleasant) occurred in the environment or entered the environment
  • The child had to transition away from a highly desirable activity to a less preferred or unpleasant activity

Behavior:

• What specifically did the child do? (e.g., hit, scream, drop, head bang, bite, run away)

Consequences:

• From the child’s perspective – what occurred in the environment in response to his or her behavior that may encourage or discourage the negative behavior itself? For example did the child:
  • Escape a demand or at least avoid it for a while because s/he engaged in the negative behavior?
  • Did s/he get to sustain involvement in the desired activity for a longer period of time because s/he engaged in the negative behavior?
  • Did s/he capture you attention (positive or negative) or get something s/he wanted because s/he engaged in the negative behavior?
  • Did s/he get pleasure out of agitating the care-provider or his/her peers?
  • Have to deal with you calmly asserting a demand with escalating insistence until s/he did what you wanted? (generally a good thing)

Comments:

• Think about both the immediate circumstances and the long term implications of the interplay between the environment, the antecedents, his or her behavior, and the consequences of the negative behavior.
  • Is the environment set up to facilitate positive desirable behaviors (success) or negative behaviors (failure)?
  • Does the child know what positive behavior is expected in place of the negative behavior?
  • Is the reinforcement for the desired behavior strong enough to actually motivate him/her to do it?
  • Did my response increase or decrease the likelihood that the problematic behavior will occur again in the future?
  • What natural (automatic) reinforcers are at play here?
  • Really, what is the child getting from this situation?

Do the best you can to understand the WHY of the behavior and journal the negative behavior for at least one week.  Doing so will help you understand more thoroughly the dynamics in place that contribute to the negative behavior and perhaps inadvertently encourage it.  Use the following Negative Behavior Journal to record every occurrence of the negative behavior targeted for reduction.  Try to be honest about your behavior and inconsistencies (if any).  Nobody is perfect and this is a learning process.  Success in this process comes when you:

• Behave as if you are a detective attempting to uncover the clues to a great mystery
• Make substantial efforts to enter the mindset of the child and attempt to look at the world through his or her eyes (and other senses)
• Accept that:
  • Most negative behaviors occur for a reason – they DO NOT tend to occur out of the blue (for no particular reason)
  • For each negative behavior there may be several reasons WHY – pay attention to the behavior over time and consider all possible functions of the behavior. For example the child may run away from you when you set a limit (tell him or her “NO!” ) or when they want your attention (e.g., want to play a cat and mouse chase game).
  • Children tend to do what works for them – We must learn WHY it works for them and then change WHAT works for them
  • There may be things in the environment that trigger the behavior (e.g., sounds, people, demands)
  • In order to change your child’s behavior, you will first likely have to change your own behavior and/or expectations
    • There may be things that you do that inadvertently encourage or maintain the behavior
    • There may be changes necessary with regard to your expectations
  • The most efficient way to change a negative behavior is to do the hard work to understand what is truly going on. You will also have to accept that it takes time and effort to understand WHY – there are no short cuts
  • Once you think you understand WHY, it takes time to develop a good intervention plan – take the time to do so carefully with investment and input from ALL care providers
  • A shared parenting plan is essential – inconsistency across parents will definitely weaken the intervention
  • If you are inconsistent in your dealings with the behavior across time, it will take even longer to reduce the negative behavior itself
  • Most negative behaviors serve a purpose for the child. Our job is to make the negative behavior less purposeful – and make a desirable behavior more purposeful for the child.  If the negative behavior “works” for the child just now and then, it will take much longer to eliminate the negative behavior. 
  • Behavior change takes time – your plan may start to work right away – but there is a good chance it will get worse for a while – so don’t give up right away – some children with very challenging behaviors are particularly skilled at getting the adults around them to give up on behavior change plans

Click here for the Negative Behavior Journal (pdf)

THERE IS A LOT TO THINK ABOUT HERE.  FOR GUIDANCE AND SUPPORT, PLEASE REACH OUT TO YOUR CHILD’S TEACHER OR THERAPIST.  PERHAPS THEY CAN ASSIST YOU OR LINK YOU WITH A BEHAVIOR SPECIALIST.

There are numerous barriers to the provision of tele-therapy for educational purposes.  Among the most challenging issues are Technological Problems and the level of Student Cooperation.   This Trouble Shooting Guide addresses these barriers.

Technological Problems

There are many technological challenges that may be a product of the platform used (e.g., Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Classroom, FaceTime, Skype, etc.) and the technical skills of the users (including you, the parent, and the student).  Other issues that may contribute to the challenges are the devices used (e.g., smartphone, tablet, and/or laptop/desktop computer), the operating system used (e.g., Windows 10, Apple iOS), and cell phone receptivity or internet broadband width.  Variations among these variables will affect the quality and consistency of interaction through this medium.

1. Platform Issues – Various platforms have different capabilities making them either quite basic (e.g., Microsoft Teams, Skype, FaceTime, Facebook Messenger) or sophisticated (e.g., Zoom). The basic platforms are good for one-way teaching (e.g., lectures, storytelling, guided movement, counseling, or consultation).  Zoom for example, is capable of more interactive back and forth instruction using videos, boom-cards, and instructional apps and games across multiple devices.  These capabilities offer significant instructional advantages; however, they require more technical skills from the teacher/therapist and even the parent/child.  The bottom line is that you must:
   1. Choose the platform that is best for the purposes you have in mind.
   2. Learn how to use the platform(s) you choose (e.g., through online training videos and practice).
   3. Know which web browsers and devices support your platform of choice (e.g., Zoom works best on a computer using Chrome as a web browser as opposed to phones/tablets that have reduced interactivity).
   4. Help the parents make appropriate accommodations, downloads, etc.
2. Anticipate that there will be problems based on the variation in devices, operating systems, web browsers, and the bandwidth available to each individual, and PLAN ACCORDINGLY. You will have to adjust your expectations based on the reality of the resources available in the student’s home.
3. Work through all these issues with the parent first before trying to teach your students.
4. Adjust your plans and expectations based on the tools and skills available. Technological hiccups during instruction have the effect of degrading the quality of instruction, as well as the willingness of the learner.

Student Cooperation

Tele-therapy necessitates the development of new skill sets for both you as a teacher (as you well know) and for the students as learners.  Provided your skills are at a point where you have started instructional tele-therapy, and you have taken the steps to facilitate the technology in your student’s home, your first job should have included teaching the child how to be a remote learner.  If not, you will have to back up (more on this in a minute).  Success is also dependent on building and sustaining rapport with the parent.  They are your allies in the instructional process – your eyes, ears, and hands.  They will facilitate or hinder your access to the student and they are absolutely key to your success. 

1. If you have both good access to the child and caregiver support, but you are struggling with maintaining student engagement and/or attention, you must assess whether the problem is:
   1. environmental (e.g., struggles with competing distractions, struggles with equipment interface), OR
   2. behavioral (e.g., the child doesn’t have the skills or motivation to attend).
2. If the problem is Environmental – based on barriers within the home environment, use the Tip Sheet I’ve developed for helping the parent set up the environment for success (https://bit.ly/3btkNpc).
3. If the problem is Behavioral – the child is struggling with sustaining attention and/or following instructions appropriately during instruction, I highly recommend that you use the Tip Sheet I’ve developed for teaching instructional control (https://bit.ly/3bzAECy).
4. The keys to success are mastery of the technology, having the parents as collaborative teaching partners, fostering a good learning environment, and well planned lessons that are realistic in terms of the technological limits in place, the capabilities of the child, and the demand load you place on the child.

Developed by Gerald T. Guild, PhD, Licensed Psychologist and Behavior Specialist

The use of Video Conferencing to teach young children is a new challenge for everyone involved.  In order for it to work, YOU and the teacher or therapist (instructor) MUST FIRST TEACH YOUR CHILD HOW TO LEARN IN THIS NEW WAY.  Teaching this new skill will likely be the first thing the instructor will want to work on.  Without the ability to attend to and participate in instruction, your child will not likely benefit from video conferencing.  The acquisition of this new skill requires careful planning and thoughtful instruction. 

Strategies that will help make this work:

1. Set the Environment Up for Success. There are several extremely important objectives here:
   1. The instructor must be very clear with you about their goals, objectives, and expectations. You will be the instructor’s eyes, ears, and hands, so if you need help or support – please ask for it!
   2. Work through the technological barriers FIRST. Download the necessary apps and/or programs as guided by the instructor and be prepared to practice with the instructor before your child is asked to participate.  Getting the technology set up and working can be the most challenging step in this entire process.  Patience is important.  You should also know in advance what device will be used, how it will be used, and where it will be used.   
   3. Set up the environment in order to eliminate competing distractions. The specifics of this will depend on your child and your home, but your child will need a good learning environment (e.g., a quiet room, no siblings watching TV or playing nearby, and minimal access to distracting toys, etc.).
   4. The instructor may suggest using visual schedules, When-Then contingencies, and preceding the session with sensory activities that increase focus. The instructor should help you get these things set up.
2. The Instructor will likely want to start slowly and focus on making it fun. Once the technology is working, you know what to expect, and the environment is set up for success, the instructor will likely start by having fun with your child.  They will minimize demands so that your child learns that this video conferencing thing is fun and that their instructor is just as fun on the screen as in person.  The early sessions may be kept short (perhaps very short).  This will require pre-planning – you will likely have to help the instructor know what your child enjoys at home so that they can tap into those interests.
3. Use Positive Behavioral Strategies. The instructor will want to work out a plan for ongoing reinforcement of appropriate attending and participating behavior during the session.  You may be asked to provide those reinforcers during the session.  They may also suggest that you follow the session with a special activity, toy, or treat to reward their hard work (even if it was just play).  This too will require advanced planning and ongoing communication with the instructor.  Please understand that these rewards are for success during the session and that they are important tools in teaching this new skill set.
4. Demands will be placed gradually. The instructor will SLOWLY start folding in small demands as your child’s attending and participation skills improve.  The instructor should initially prioritize making your child feel successful during this new type of instruction.
5. Be Attentive. Both you and the instructor should continually attend to the child’s level of interest in the activities, his or her level of focus, and how conducive the environment is to learning.  It may be necessary to adjust and modify expectations throughout the session.  The instructor will try to end the session before the child’s interest and motivation disappears.  Also they will want to end it on a positive note.  Talking about how the session went, at the end of the session, will be important to the ongoing success of this approach. 
6. Continually Adjust Strategies and Expectations. It will be important to continually assess, adapt, and adjust the strategies, as well as everyone’s expectations throughout each session.  The same is true regarding the quality of the learning environment and the use of reinforcers. 
7. Have Fun & Make it Fun! Brainstorm games, the use of favorite toys, stories, and songs, as well as activities (including physical movement) that can be implemented while video conferencing.  Be creative, be silly, and remember that rule number one is: Have Fun!

Developed by Dr. Gerald T. Guild, PhD, Licensed Psychologist and Behavior Specialist at The Children’s League in Springville, New York and by Kimberly Guild, MS, SLP-CCC, Speech Language Pathologist at Cattaraugus-Allegany BOCES in Olean, NY

The use of Video Conferencing to teach young children, particularly those with disabilities, is fraught with many NEW challenges.  In order for it to work, the instructor MUST FIRST TEACH THE CHILD HOW TO PARTICIPATE ADAPTIVELY.   It is essential to prioritize gaining the instructional control of the student over implementing other IEP objectives.  Consider instructional control in this context, as a new skill-set that is foundational: necessitating careful planning and thoughtful instruction. 

Key Strategies:

1. Set the Environment Up for Success. There are several extremely important objectives here:
   1. Be explicit with caregivers about your goals, objectives, and expectations – they are your key allies and instructional assistants in this process (i.e., your eyes, ears, and hands) and you absolutely need them to work with you to make this happen. This is new to them too, so you must teach them how to teach, and you must keep them on your side.  They will need your guidance, support, and compassion. 
   2. Work through the technological barriers FIRST. Help the caregivers acquire the necessary apps and downloads, and learn the procedures necessary to video conference BEFORE attempting to meet with the child. Practice with the caregiver first, as these challenges must not be underestimated.
   3. Teach the caregiver how to set up the environment in order to eliminate competing reinforcers and distractions. The specifics of this will depend on the child and the resources within the home, but you must discuss with the caregiver what device will be used, how it will be used, where it will be used, and they must understand that their child absolutely needs a conducive learning environment (e.g., a quiet room, no siblings watching TV or playing nearby, and minimal access to competing reinforcers, etc.).  
   4. Also consider the use of visual schedules, When-Then contingencies, and prior to the session, sensory activities that will likely increase the child’s level of focus.
2. Start Small and Focus on Pairing with Reinforcers. Once the technology is working, the caregiver understands what to do, and the environment is set up for success, start by having fun with the child.  Minimize demands at first and just focus on making sure that they have fun with you.  Teach them that this video conferencing thing is fun and that you are just as fun on a screen as you are in person.  Remember to keep it short (perhaps very short).  This will require pre-planning, knowing what the child enjoys at home, and tapping into their inherent interests.
3. Use Positive Behavioral Strategies. Work out a plan for ongoing reinforcement of appropriate attending and participation during the session and follow the session with a contingent highly potent activity, toy, or treat.  This will require advanced planning and ongoing communication with the caregiver as they are the likely providers of the tangible reinforcers.
4. Carefully Approach Demands. Once you have a happy participant (which may take many short and fun visits), SLOWLY start folding in small demands – addressing skills they have already mastered at school.  It will be important to prioritize making them feel successful in order to maintain the child’s motivation.
5. Be Attentive. Continually attend to the child’s motivation, focus of attention, the environment, and the needs of the caregiver as you “work” with the child. Adjust and modify your expectations as the session evolves, try to end it before the child’s interest and motivation disappears (end it on your terms AND on a positive note), and debrief with the caregiver following the session. 
6. Adjust Your Strategies and Expectations Continually. Always assess, adapt, and adjust your practice, your expectations, the environment, and your use of reinforcers. 
7. Have Fun & Make it Fun! Brainstorm games, the use of favorite toys, stories, and songs, as well as activities (including physical movement) that can be implemented while video conferencing.  Be creative, be silly, and rule number one: Have Fun!
8. Ramp Up Demands Slowly and Carefully. As Grandfather Guild always said “The hurrier I go, the behinder I get!”

Developed by Dr. Gerald T. Guild, PhD, Licensed Psychologist and Behavior Specialist at The Children’s League in Springville, New York and by Kimberly Guild, MS, SLP-CCC, Speech Language Pathologist at Cattaraugus-Allegany BOCES in Olean, NY

Although I did not make a substantial number of posts in 2013, the traffic to my site remained relatively vigorous.  Throughout 2013 my blog had 24,007 hits from 21,042 unique visitors, accounting for nearly 30,000 page views.  I had visitors from every state in the US and 158 nations around the world.  Visitors from the United States accounted for the vast majority of those hits, but the UK, Canada, Australia, India, China, and Germany also brought in large contingents.

Of my posts published in 2013, none made it to this year’s top ten list: five were from 2010,  four were published in 2011, and one was from 2012.  This year the top ranked article (The Moral Instinct) was a 2010 review of a very popular 2008 New York Time’s article by Steven Pinker.   This perennially popular piece ranked 5th last year, 4th in 2011 and 3rd in 2010.   Its bounce to the top this year is more of a testament to Pinker and the popularity of his piece that explores the universality of morals.  In that piece I wrote:

Pinker delves into the neurological factors associated with morality and the evolutionary evidence and arguments for an instinctual morality. He reviews several important studies that provide evidence for these hypotheses. But, he argues that morality is more than an inheritance – it is larger than that. It is contextually driven. He notes: “At the very least, the science tells us that even when our adversaries’ agenda is most baffling, they may not be amoral psychopaths but in the throes of a moral mind-set that appears to them to be every bit as mandatory and universal as ours does to us. Of course, some adversaries really are psychopaths, and others are so poisoned by a punitive moralization that they are beyond the pale of reason. ” He further contends “But in any conflict in which a meeting of the minds is not completely hopeless, a recognition that the other guy is acting from moral rather than venal reasons can be a first patch of common ground.

This article may have also remained popular because of its relevance with regard to the state of affairs in today’s political arena and the application of Jonathon Haidt’s increasingly popular work on the Moral Foundations Theory.  

The 2013 number two ranked piece Nonmoral Nature: It is what it is, is a review of one of Stephen Jay Gould’s most famous articles where he argued that there is no evidence of morality in nature, that in fact “nature as it plays out evolution’s dance, is entirely devoid of anything pertaining to morality or evil. We anthropomorphize when we apply these concepts. Even to suggest that nature is cruel is anthropomorphizing. Any true and deep look at the struggle for life that constantly dances in our midst can scarcely lead to any other conclusion but that nature is brutal, harsh, and nonmoral” (Gould).  Historically this has been a controversial topic and remains so in certain circles today.  This piece has remained popular over the years – ranking 4th last year and 2nd in 2011 and 2010.

Brain MRI

Brainwaves and Other Brain Measures – the 3rd ranking post this year ranked 2nd last year and 1st in 2011. This very popular piece takes a pragmatic, comparative, and colorful look at the various ways of measuring brain activity.  My 2012 article Happiness as Measured by GDP: Really?  is finally getting some attention.  Although it ranked 10th last year, it has climbed into the number four slot this year.  I contend that this is perhaps one of the most important articles I have written.

Proud as a Peacock By Mark Melnick

My critical article on the widely used Implicit Associations Test ranked 5th this year, 6th in 2012, and 4th in 2011. Last year’s number one piece on Conspicuous Consumption and the Peacock’s Tail  is one of my favorite pieces.  It addresses our inherent drive to advance one’s social standing while actually going nowhere on the hedonic treadmill.  It delves into the environmental costs of buying into the illusion of consumer materialism and its biological origins (the signaling instinct much like that of the Peacock’s tail).

I am excited to report that Poverty is a Neurotoxin is also finally gaining some traction.  Published in 2011 it has never achieved a top ranking; although, in my humble opinion, it is no less important.  Rounding out the top ten of 2013, my Hedgehog versus the Fox mindset piece ranked 8th this year, 9th last year, and 10th in 2011. One of my all time favorite posts from 2010,  What Plato, Descartes, and Kant Got Wrong: Reason Does not Rule made it back to the top ten list this year coming in 9th.  It was 7th in 2011 and 8th in 2010.  My 2011 post Where Does Prejudice Come From? ranked 10th this year, 7th last year, and 5th in 2011.

So here is the Top Ten list for 2013.

1. Moral Instinct  (2010) 4182 page views since published – All time ranking #5
2. Non Moral Nature: It is what it is (2010) 4616 page views since published – All time ranking #3
3. Brainwaves and Other Brain Measures (2011) 7941 page views since published – All time ranking #1
4. Happiness as Measured by GDP: Really? (2012) 1719 page views since published – All time ranking #8
5. IAT: Questions of Reliability and Validity  (2010) 2572 page views since published – All time ranking #6
6. Conspicuous Consumption & the Peacock’s Tail (2011) 7677 page views since published – All time ranking #2
7. Poverty is a Neurotoxin (2011) 960 page views since published – All time ranking #18
8. Are you a Hedgehog or a Fox?  (2010) 1702 page views since published – All time ranking #9
9. What Plato, Descartes, and Kant Got Wrong: Reason Does not Rule (2010) 1381 page views since published – All time ranking #12
10. Where Does Prejudice Come From?  (2011) 1625 page views since published – All time ranking #10

Rounding out the top ten All Time Most Popular Pieces are:

• Wicked! Things are NOT as they Seem (2012) 4485 page views since published – All time ranking #4
• Attribution Error (2010) 2263 page views since published – All time ranking #7

These top ranking articles represent the foundational issues that have driven me in my quest to understand how people think.   This cross section of my work is, in fact, a good starting point for those who are new to my blog.

There are several other 2013 posts that ranked outside this year’s top ten list; regardless, I believe they are important.  These other posts include:

1. Mind Pops: Memories from out of the Blue
2. Who Cheats More: The Rich or the Poor?
3. Crime, Punishment, and Entitlement: A Deeper Look
4. Cheaters
5. American Exceptionalism: I’m all for it!
6. Partisan Belief Superiority and Dogmatism as a Source of Political Gridlock

Maintaining relevance is an article, published in 2012, The Meek Shall Inherit The Earth: Our Microbiome, pertains to the collection of an estimated 100 trillion individual organisms (bacteria for the most part) thriving in and on your body that account for about three pounds of your total body weight (about the same weight as your brain).  These little creatures play a huge role in your physical and mental well being and we are just beginning to understand the extent of their reach.  Modern medicine in the future, will likely embrace the microbiotic ecosystem as a means of preventing and treating many illnesses (including treating some mental illnesses).  I have continued to update this piece with comments including links to new research on this topic.

Children of high socioeconomic status (SES) show more activity (dark green) in the prefrontal cortex (top) than do kids of low SES when confronted with a novel or unexpected stimulus. (Mark Kishiyama/UC Berkeley)

Although, not among the most popular articles this year, my pieces on the pernicious affects of poverty on child development from 2011 warrant ongoing attention.  If we truly wish to halt the cycle of poverty, then we need to devote early and evidenced based intervention services for children and families living in poverty.  As it turns out, poverty is a neurotoxin.  Knowing the information in this series should motivate us, as a society, to truly evaluate our current political and economic policies.

• Parenting May Matter: For Infants and the Economically Deprived 

• The Effects of Poverty on Brain Development 

• The Economic, Neurobiological, and Behavioral Implications of Poverty 

• Halting the negative Feedback Loop of Poverty 

• Poverty Preventing Preschools 

• Poverty is a Neurotoxin 

The bottom line:

The human brain, no matter how remarkable, is flawed in two fundamental ways.  First, the proclivities toward patternicity (pareidolia), hyperactive agency detection, and superstition, although once adaptive mechanisms, now lead to many errors of thought.  Since the age of enlightenment, when human-kind developed the scientific method, we have exponentially expanded our knowledge base regarding the workings of the world and the universe.  These leaps of knowledge have rendered those error prone proclivities unessential for survival.  Regardless, they have remained a dominant cognitive force.  Although our intuition and rapid cognitions (intuitions) have sustained us, and in many ways they still do, the subsequent everyday illusions impede us in important ways.

Secondly, we are prone to a multitude of cognitive biases that diminish and narrow our capacity to truly understand the world. Time after time I have written of the dangers of ideology with regard to its capacity to blindfold its disciples.  Often those blindfolds are absolutely essential to sustain the ideology.  And this is dangerous when truths and facts are denied or innocents are subjugated or brutalized.  As I discussed in Spinoza’s Conjecture:

 

“We all look at the world through our personal lenses of experience.  Our experiences shape our understanding of the world, and ultimately our understanding of [it], then filters what we take in.  The end result is that we may reject or ignore new and important information simply because it does not conform to our previously held beliefs.

Because of these innate tendencies, we must make additional effort to step away from what we believe to be true in order to discover what is indeed true.

The Hand of God as an example of pareidolia.

Are you sick and tired of politicians and their antics throughout the United States? Regardless of your political orientation, this is likely the case.  Over the last 20 years there has been a rising tide of bitter partisanship, leaving a large contingent of US Citizens feeling frustrated and disenfranchised.  Meanwhile both parties point their fingers at their adversaries proclaiming that it is the ideological extremism of the other party causing the divide.   The liberals are accused of promoting socialistic policies while the conservatives are accused of acquiescing to religious and corporate interests.

Underlying this partisanship are two driving concepts, dogmatism and belief superiority.  Dogmatism is generally conceptualized as ideological rigidity.  This is characterized by the holding of beliefs as “incontrovertible and sacrosanct,”¹  with a conviction that the beliefs cannot, and should not, be abandoned.  Belief superiority, on the other hand, is self defining but it lacks the rigidity factor.  One can hold a belief as being superior to the beliefs of others, but be willing to modify that belief based on evidence or changing societal values.

Some contend that both liberals and conservatives at the polar ends of the political spectrum are ideological extremists and thus are more likely to be dogmatic.  This position is known as the Ideological-Extremist Hypothesis.  Another perspective, held by many, is the Rigidity of the Right Hypothesis, that contends that conservatives tend to score higher than liberals on measures of dogmatism, intolerance of ambiguity, and closed-mindedness.  Naturally, the issue is more nuanced than this.  These issues have been studied and published in a paper by Toner, Leary, Asher, and Jongman-Sereno (2013) titled Feeling Superior Is a Bipartisan Issue: Extremity (Not Direction) of Political Views Predicts Perceived Belief Superiority.   Toner et al., (2013) contend that:

“Not only do individuals – liberals and conservative alike – vary in the issues about which they feel superior, but also evidence suggests that liberals and conservatives may be dogmatic about different issues.  For example compared to conservatives, liberals are more dogmatic about global warming, equally dogmatic about civil unions, and less dogmatic about affirmative action.” ¹

Measuring both belief superiority and dogmatism, Toner and her colleagues attempted to assess the veracity of both the Rigidity of the Right and the Ideological Extremism Hypotheses.   They did this through an online questionnaire service whereby they collected data on 527 subjects (55% male, 49% with some college, ages 18-67 years with a mean age of 30.7).  Three questionnaires were completed by each participant including: 1) an issues oriented set of questions quantifying attitudes on nine contentious political topics –  thereby determining their political sensibilities on a conservative-liberal spectrum; 2) a superiority of belief measure assessing the degree of certainty of correctness on each issue, and 3) a measure of dogmatic thinking.  Co-author Mark Leary  noted that they: “… examined whether those who endorse the extremes of conservative and liberal viewpoints demonstrate greater belief superiority than those who hold moderate views.²

Consistent with previous research findings, those espousing more conservative attitudes scored significantly higher on the dogmatism scale.   Thus the Rigidity of the Right Hypothesis was supported while the Ideological Extremism hypothesis was unsubstantiated.  In other words, extreme conservatives scored much higher on the dogmatism scale than did extreme liberals.  With regard to belief superiority, both conservatives and liberals demonstrated this attribute, but on different topics (see Figure 2 below from Toner, et al., 2013).  Specifically, people who endorsed conservative attitudes expressed greater belief superiority than did liberals when asked about voter identification laws, affirmative action, and taxes.  Liberals demonstrated greater belief superiority on the issues pertaining to the role in government in helping the less fortunate, the use of torture on terrorists, and the basing of laws on religious teachings.  The more “extreme” one’s attitudes were, the greater their belief superiority tended to be.

As this study and a number of previous studies have provided evidence for, dogmatism tends to be associated with those at the conservative end of the spectrum.  Meanwhile, belief superiority is more specific to the issues and is evident at both ends of the spectrum.  Toner et al., (2013) note:

“… belief superiority does not include the unchanging, inflexible element implied by dogmatism.  Thus, people who endorse extremely liberal views may feel as equally superior in their beliefs as those endorsing extremely conservative views, but they might be more likely to adjust their views over time with changes in evidence, social norms, or other people’s influence.”¹

History is filled with travesties perpetrated by extremists at both ends of the political spectrum promoting egalitarian (liberal), individualistic (conservative), and/or religious agendas.   As Toner et al., (2013) suggest, strong beliefs based in evidence may be reasonable and justified.  It is dogmatism, regardless of what belief system that it emanates from, which constitutes danger. Dangerous yes, but more relevant today is the reality that such bombast results in gridlock.  These mindsets help explain the current US governmental stalemate as Toner noted in an interview for Duke Today: “These findings help to explain why politicians with more extreme views can’t reach across the aisle.  As more extreme candidates get elected to Congress, compromise becomes more difficult and deadlocks increase because those with more extreme views are more certain that they are right.”²

Although certainty and confidence are attractive in leaders, it is exactly these very attributes that render politicians ineffective.  Life and society are complicated.  There are no easy solutions.  What I took away from this study is that we need collaboration among diverse and intelligent thinkers who are unencumbered by dogmatism and extremist ideology.  We, as a people, must stop feeding into the vitriolic nature of politics and look for leaders who are more willing to work together to solve complex problems.  We must stop feeding the monster, before it eats us up.  One important way to end this is to stop attending to extremist political pundits who stir up hatred and polarize politics.  We all know who these pundits are.  The reality is that media driven hatred and fear mongering drives these phenomena and it is commercial Television and Radio that gives these pundits a platform.  Perhaps it is time to hit their corporate sponsors as they are complicit in spoiling the well.

References:

1. Toner, K., Leary,  M. R., Asher, M. W., & Jongman-Sereno, K. P. (2013).  Feeling Superior is a Bipartisan Issue: Extremity (Not Direction) of Political Views Predicts Perceived Belief Superiority, Psychological Science, DOI: 10.1177/0956797613494848

2.  Duke Today. (2013). Belief Superiority is Bipartisan

Also See:

American Exceptionalism: I’m All For It!

The Illusion of Punditry

Political Divide

Moral Foundations Theory

Are you a Hedgehog or a Fox?

It is widely believed that as a society, we are heavily burdened by freeloaders who are content with living off the fruits of others’ labor. Inherent in this belief is the idea that the poor are more likely to be cheaters. This notion is core to the ideology that fuels the discontent of many on the conservative end of the political spectrum. I have recently written about cheating behavior in general, and how pervasive it is, particularly at the upper end of the economic spectrum. I have also written about corporate and white-collar crime and the egregious costs we all bare as a result of misconduct among the nation’s economic elite. When I sat down to write each of those two previous articles, my intent was to write something about a recent peer-reviewed paper that looked empirically at the relationship between cheating behavior and income level. The evidence substantiated in this series of studies challenges the belief that poor people are more inclined to cheat. In fact, the results turn this misconception upside down.

In this very interesting 2012 paper titled: Higher Social Class Predicts Increased Unethical Behavior, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), the authors, Paul Piff, Daniel Stancato, Stephanie Côté, Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton, and Dacher Keltner empirically examine the relationship between relative wealth, propensity to engage in unethical behavior, and attitude about greed. Piff, et al. reviewed the relevant literature and hypothesized, based on a landslide of evidence, that affluent people, relative to low income people, will be more likely to engage in and condone unethical behavior and value greed. In their review of the literature they note that:

“Abundant resources and elevated rank allow upper-class individuals increased freedom and independence, giving rise to self-focused patterns of social cognition and behavior. Relative to lower-class individuals, upper-class individuals have been shown to be less cognizant of others and worse at identifying the emotions that others feel. Furthermore, upper-class individuals are more disengaged during social interactions — for example, checking their cell phones or doodling on a questionnaire — compared with their lower-class peers. Individuals from upper-class backgrounds are also less generous and altruistic. In one study, upper-class individuals proved more selfish in an economic game, keeping significantly more laboratory credits — which they believed would later be exchanged for cash — than did lower-class participants, who shared more of their credits with a stranger. These results parallel nationwide survey data showing that upper-class households donate a smaller proportion of their incomes to charity than do lower-class households. These findings suggest that upper-class individuals are particularly likely to value their own welfare over the welfare of others and, thus, may hold more positive attitudes toward greed.”

To test their hypotheses, these investigators devised seven studies to look at these relationships across a variety of contexts. Research subjects included more than 1,000 people from all walks of life. Studies 1 and 2 were naturalistic field studies whereby “Observers stood near the intersection, coded the status of approaching vehicles, and recorded [1] whether the driver cut off other vehicles by crossing the intersection before waiting their turn” and [2] “whether upper-class drivers are more likely to cut off pedestrians at a crosswalk.” Affluence was calibrated based on the make, age, and appearance of the vehicles driven – because vehicles have been established as a reliable indicator of a person’s “social rank and wealth.” People driving expensive (premium brands such as BMW, Lexus, Mercedes-Benz, etc.), late model (newish), and well cared for automobiles were deemed to be affluent – while those driving older, less expensive (i.e., Chevy, Dodge, etc.), and more poorly maintained automobiles, were deemed to be low income individuals.

Study 3 directly assessed the participant’s relative level of affluence and their subsequent proclivity toward a variety of unethical decisions (e.g., “participants read eight different scenarios that implicated an actor in unrightfully taking or benefiting from something, and reported the likelihood that they would engage in the behavior described“). Study 4 literally assessed whether there was a correlation between affluence and the willingness to take candy from a jar purportedly for children participating in a different study. Study 5 assessed the relationship between affluence and honesty in a role play involving a hypothetical scenario where participants were asked to engage in negotiations with a job candidate looking for long-term employment. The participants were told that the job they were filling was likely to be eliminated, and their honesty about sharing the instability of the job with applicants was assessed. Study 6 looked at actual cheating behavior on a game of chance “in which the computer presented them with one side of a six-sided die, ostensibly randomly, on five separate rolls. Participants were told that higher rolls would increase their chances of winning a cash prize and were asked to report their total score at the end of the game. In fact, die rolls were predetermined to sum up to 12. The extent to which participants reported a total exceeding 12 served as a direct behavioral measure of cheating.” The tendency to cheat on this game was also assessed as a function of affluence.

In each of these first six studies, the findings suggest that upper-income people, relative to low-income people, were statistically more likely to: (Study 1) cut off other drivers, (Study 2) disregard people in crosswalks, (Study 3) condone and report a likelihood to engage in similar unethical conduct, (Study 4) take candy from children, (Study 5) be dishonest in the role of hiring someone regarding the permanence of the position, and (Study 6) cheat on a game of chance. In addition, in studies 5 and 6, people of greater wealth were more likely to favor and value greed relative to their less affluent compatriots.

Study 7 was a bit more complicated and assessed the degree to which attitudes toward greed were responsive to pro-cheating priming. Individuals from across both high and low income groups were assigned to one of two conditions: (a) a greed neutral activity (listing three things they did that day), or (b) pro-greed priming (an activity where they were asked to list several positive attributes of greed). Participants were assessed regarding their attitude toward greed and self-reported propensity to engage in unethical behavior at work. Regardless of level of affluence, those exposed to pro-greed priming were more likely to engage in unethical behavior. Attitude about greed seems to play a crucial role in driving ethical behavior. The authors note that: “… upper-class individuals’ more favorable attitudes toward greed can help explain their propensity toward unethical behavior.” They also assert that throughout their lives, richer people are more likely to be educated and primed to be assertive with regard to accomplishing their own goals. Poorer people generally have negative feelings about greed and are thus less likely to behave unethically.

In these naturalistic and laboratory studies, affluent individuals were more likely to cheat or act unethically than were poor people, and to have positive feelings about greed. These results generalized across self-reported measures of affluence as well as objective measures. The implications of these findings are not to suggest that affluent people, as a whole, are unethical and greedy – nor does it suggest that the poor are uniformly ethical and less greedy. The bottom-line here is that relative to poor people, affluent people have a greater likelihood of engaging in unethical behavior and endorsing greed. These conclusions contrast a popular misconception about the poor and expand how we should think about cheating behavior in general.

It is important to note that this study will need replication in order to become firmly established; however, these findings are unidirectional and unambiguous. They are also consistent with what has been verified in the literature to date. Although there are examples of extraordinary philanthropy by affluent people such as Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, there are many other examples of systematic corruption and crime among the economic elite. On the other end of the spectrum there are those poor individuals who proudly game the system in such a way to take more than they contribute. I hear stories of such individuals with such regularity that these narratives take on the feel of urban legend. I routinely work with hard working individuals from the lowest end of the economic spectrum and in my more than 20 years of exposure to this population, I have only come across one family that fits this description. Meanwhile, my professional colleagues have to devote huge amounts of time to documenting Early Intervention and Preschool Services as a result of Medicaid Fraud perpetrated by affluent and unethical service providers who bill for services never rendered. In other words, my extensive personal anecdotes align with the findings of this series of studies.

It seems to me that it is indeed time to challenge the meme that poor people are lazy, freeloading, cheaters. At the same time it seems prudent to open our eyes to the misconduct of the affluent. The evidence certainly supports such a conclusion. This brings to mind a quote by John Adams:

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

Reference:

Piff, P. K., Stancato, D. M., Côté, S., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Keltner, D. (2012). Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

Out to dinner recently, a friend and I were discussing an organization whose name implies one thing, when in actuality, what they promote is entirely the opposite.  We both racked our brains to come up with the name of that organization with no success.   Days later, without any recent thought of the elusive name – the words Discovery Institute sprung forward in my mind.  It was a spontaneous and surprising recall that brought me relief and pleasure.  “Ah Ha!  That’s what we were trying to remember the other night.  Yes!” I said to myself.   These types of memories are called Mind Pops.

They are also referred to as involuntary semantic memories.  As was the case in my example, they are completely involuntary in that this type of recall occurs without any current conscious, active thought.  In the more scholarly term (involuntary semantic memories), the word semantic suggests that the relevant recall springs forth from one’s semantic knowledge – for example, most commonly the item recalled is a word, phrase, image, melody, or a proper name that one has learned or has previously been exposed to.  These recall events pop into conscious thought  (i.e.,  your “mind“), without current conscious active pursuit – thus the origin of the more compelling descriptor Mind Pops.

These memory events are a relatively new topic of research revealing, as was the case in my example, that such events are not always truly random.  Although the memory may be irrelevant at the exact moment that it pops into awareness, they usually are linked to one’s past experiences.  Sometimes they occur with no conscious awareness of the the trigger itself.   In my example, there was an event that consciously set the stage for my Mind Pop (i.e., striving to recall the Discovery Institute), but some Mind Pops are more mysterious.

Kvavilashvili and her colleague George Mandler, propose that “the completely out of the blue” Mind Pops are often explained by “long-term priming.” Priming itself is an interesting topic, but essentially it is a phenomena whereby your behavior can be altered by exposure to stimuli that enters your unconscious (implicit) memory.  Research has demonstrated that people can be primed to be more polite and patient if unwittingly exposed to words in an unrelated task that lists concepts associated with being polite and patient.   People will walk more slowly if they are implicitly primed with words associated with the elderly.  Furthermore, recall of trivia is better if people are asked to think about the role of being a college professor before being asked the trivia questions relative to folks asked to first think about being a soccer hooligan (with other variables held constant).

This unconscious priming sets the stage for these mysterious out of the blue Mind Pops.  Subconscious exposure to an image, a word, a song, or a scene serves as the trigger for later Popping.  As the word subconscious implies, the exposure occurs completely outside of conscious awareness.  When Kvavilashvili and Mandler asked subjects to journal their Mind Pops, there were numerous examples where the Pops had no clear, or very subtle, triggers.   “Most of the information we encounter on a daily basis activates certain representations in the mind,” Kvavilashvili explains. “If you go past a fish and chips shop, not only the concept of fish may get activated but lots of things related to fish, and they may stay activated for a certain amount of time—for hours or even days. Later on, other things in the environment may trigger these already active concepts, which have the feeling of coming out of nowhere.”  Kvavilashvili noted that “I got curious about [Mind Pops] because they seemed so random and out of the blue, but these mind pops are genuine fragments of knowledge about the world. What it shows us is that our subconscious often knows the meaning of an experience, even if consciously we don’t.”

Researchers like Dr. Lia Kvavilashvili are finding that Mind Pops are quite common.  I’m sure that  you have likely experienced such events yourself.  Kvavilashvili suggests that they are most often words or phrases rather than images or sounds and that they usually occur in the midst of some routine activity such as engaging self care.  In other words, they are most likely to occur when your mind is not focused on the task at hand and is free to wander.  A variant of this phenomena is the Tip of the Tongue (TOT) experience – where you may be struggling to remember a name or a word and it feels as though it is right on the tip of your tongue; yet, you just can’t spit it out.  Then later, when you have stopped actively pursuing it, the word surfaces.  That letting go of pursuit allows your implicit (unconscious) memory do its work.

Although almost everyone experiences Mind Pops, there seems to be an increased frequency of Mind Popping in individuals with mental health issues.  Researchers Keith Laws, Lia Kvavilashvili, and Ia Elua, conducted some preliminary research whereby they compared the frequency of Mind Pops in 37 individuals with schizophrenia, 31 people with depression, and 26 individuals with no mental health issues.  On average, individuals with Schizophrenia reported 3-4 Mind Pops a weeks, while individuals with depression reported 1-2 a month, and healthy individuals reported 1-2 every six months.  Invasive thoughts that bleed through consciousness are indeed some of the prominent features of schizophrenia and depression, so these categorical differences do make sense.

In my personal correspondence with Dr. Kvavilashvili, she differentiated Mind Pops from the Involuntary Autobiographical Memories I described in a previous post titled The Guilt-Empathy Connection.  In that post I discussed a similar phenomena whereby “serenity seems to occasionally pave the way for a sequence of thoughts triggered by a song or a smell, or anything really, that ushers in a blast from the past.  A cavalcade of memories then flow forth both effortlessly and seamlessly.  And all of this occurs outside of conscious control.  For me, it often begins with a pleasant memory, but it can take a circuitous route, bringing me to memories that I would prefer remain inaccessible.  The ending point is usually a moment in time where I come face to face with a mistake I made – usually a long forgotten unintentional misstep that reveled a less sensitive or perceptive side of my persona.”  Dr. Kvavilashvili noted that there seem to be “personality and individual difference variables at play” in my type of guilt based Involuntary Autobiographical Memories.

In a cursory review of the literature, I did come across a study by Dr. Dorthe Berntsen and she wrote that “The involuntary [autobiographical] memories more frequently referred to specific episodes, came with more physical reaction, had more impact on mood, and dealt with more unusual and less positive events.”  This coincides with my anecdotal experiences (for whatever that is worth).  For me, these events were indeed outliers, they were negative and viscerally so, and they did significantly affect my mood.  Mind Pops are quite different from such Involuntary Autobiographical Memories in that the Pops are more semantic in nature (rather than biographical or experiential), and the Pops tend to be more positively experienced.

Although Mind Pops and Involuntary Autobiographical Memories are commonplace, they certainly constitute manifestations of our amazing and incredibly complex brain.  Please share your interesting Mind Pops or Involuntary Autobiographical Memories in the Comments section below so that you can showcase the amazing capabilities of your brain.  And when you have one of those “out of the blue” Mind Pops look deep to find the source of the subconscious trigger – you might be amazed by your inattentional blindness or the vastness of what your mind’s eye takes in beyond what you see.

References:

Berntsen, D., and Hall, N. M., (2004).  The episodic nature of involuntary autobiographical memories. Memory & Cognition. Jul; 32(5): 789-803.

Cowen, Mark, (2012).  ‘Mind-pop’ frequency increased in schizophrenia patients.  MedWire News.com

Guild, G. (2010).  Are You a Robot? can I Program Your Responses?  How Do You Think? http://geraldguild.com

Guild, G. (2012).  The Guilt – Empathy Connection.  How Do You Think? http://geraldguild.com

Elua, I., Laws, K., and Kvavilashvili, L.. (2012). From mind-pops to hallucinations? A study of involuntary semantic memories in schizophrenia.  Psychiatry Research. V. 196 (2), Pgs. 165-170.

Jbar, Ferris, (2012). Mind-Pops: Psychologists Begin to Study an Unusual form of Proustian Memory.  Scientific American.com

Kvavilashvilia, L., and Mandler, G. (2003). Out of one’s mind: A study of involuntary semantic memories.  Paper shared by author in personal correspondence.

Science Daily (2012). Mind-Pops More Likely With Schizophrenia.  ScienceDaily.com

Although I did not make a substantial number of posts in 2012, the traffic to my site doubled.  Throughout 2012 my blog had 35,819 hits from 31,960 unique visitors, accounting for over 46,720 page views.  I had visitors from every state in the US and visits from people from 165 nations around the world.  Visitors from the United States accounted for the vast majority of those hits, but the UK, Canada, India, and Australia also brought in large contingents.

This year the top ranked article was my 2011 post on Conspicuous Consumption and the Peacock’s Tail, which accounted for 50% more hits than this year’s number two ranked article (Brainwaves and Other Brain Measures – the number one post from last year).  The piece on conspicuous consumption, is in my opinion, one of my all time most important pieces.  It addresses our inherent drive to advance one’s social standing while actually going nowhere on the hedonic treadmill.  It delves into the environmental costs of buying into the illusion of consumer materialism and its biological origins (the signaling instinct much like that of the Peacock). The Brainwave piece, also from 2011, compares and contrasts the different measures used to peer into the workings of the brain.

Of my posts published in 2012, only two made it to this year’s top ten list: five were from 2010 and three were published in 2011.  Of those eight from previous years, five were also on the top ten list last year.

My 2012 review and discussion of the Broadway Musical Wicked topped the list of posts actually written in 2012, but it came in third overall this year relative to all other posts.  This article explores the theme that “things are not as they seem.”  I relate the story told in the show to the political and historical manipulation American citizens are subjected to, and it stirs up unpleasant and inconvenient realities that many would prefer remain unknown.

Great interest persists in my post entitled Nonmoral Nature: It is what it is.  This review of Stephen Jay Gould’s most famous article received a number four ranking, down from a number two ranking over the last two years.  I had also reviewed in 2010 a very popular New York Time’s article by Steven Pinker entitled The Moral Instinct.  This article moved down two notches this year, ultimately ranking number five.  My critical article on the Implicit Associations Test ranked number six this year, versus a number four ranking last year.  My 2011 post Where Does Prejudice Come From? ranked number seven this year, down two spots from its ranking in 2011.  One of my all time favorite posts from 2010, Emotion vs. Reason: And the Winner is?  returned to the top ten list this year coming in eighth.   In 2010 it ranked number ten, but it fell off the list last year.  My Hedgehog versus the Fox mindset piece ranked number nine this year, compared to a number ten ranking last year.  Finally, in the number ten slot this year,  is my 2012 article Happiness as Measured by GDP: Really?  This post was perhaps the most important post of the year.

So here is the Top Ten list for 2012.

1. Conspicuous Consumption and the Peacock’s Tail (2011)
2. Brainwaves and Other Brain Measures (2011)
3. Wicked! Things are NOT as they Seem (2012)
4. Non Moral Nature: It is what it is (2010)
5. Moral Instinct  (2010)
6. IAT: Questions of Reliability and Validity  (2010)
7. Where Does Prejudice Come From?  (2011)
8. Emotion vs. Reason: And the Winner is? (2010)
9. Are you a Hedgehog or a Fox?  (2010)
10. Happiness as Measured by GDP: Really? (2012)

Again this year, the top ten articles represent the foundational issues that have driven me in my quest to understand how people think.   This cross section of my work is, in fact, a good starting point for those who are new to my blog.  There are several other 2012 posts that ranked outside the top ten; regardless, I believe they are important.  These other posts include:

• So Your Partner Drives You Crazy? You’re Not Alone. Here’s Why
• Freud: In Some Ways He Was Right
• The Meek Shall Inherit The Earth

This latter article, The Meek Shall Inherit The Earth, pertains to the microbiome, the collection of an estimated 100 trillion individual organisms thriving in and on your body that account for about three pounds of your total body weight (about the same weight as your brain).  These little creatures play a huge role in your physical and mental well being and we are just beginning to understand the extent of their reach.  Modern medicine in the future, will likely embrace the microbiome as a means of preventing and treating many illnesses (including treating some mental illnesses).

Although, not among the most popular articles this year, my pieces on the pernicious affects of poverty on child development from 2011 warrant ongoing attention.  If we truly wish to halt the cycle of poverty, then we need to devote early and evidenced based intervention services for children and families living in poverty.  As it turns out, poverty is a neurotoxin.  Knowing the information in this series should motivate us, as a society, to truly evaluate our current political and economic policies.

• Parenting May Matter: For Infants and the Economically Deprived  

• The Effects of Poverty on Brain Development  

• The Economic, Neurobiological, and Behavioral Implications of Poverty  

• Halting the negative Feedback Loop of Poverty  

• Poverty Preventing Preschools  

• Poverty is a Neurotoxin  

The bottom line:

The human brain, no matter how remarkable, is flawed in two fundamental ways.  First, the proclivities toward patternicity (pareidolia), hyperactive agency detection, and superstition, although once adaptive mechanisms, now lead to many errors of thought.  Since the age of enlightenment, when human kind developed the scientific method, we have exponentially expanded our knowledge base regarding the workings of the world and the universe.  These leaps of knowledge have rendered those error prone proclivities unessential for survival.  Regardless, they have remained a dominant cognitive force.  Although our intuition and rapid cognitions have sustained us, and in some ways still do, the subsequent everyday illusions impede us in important ways.

Secondly, we are prone to a multitude of cognitive biases that diminish and narrow our capacity to truly understand the world. Time after time I have written of the dangers of ideology with regard to its capacity to blindfold its disciples.  Often those blindfolds are absolutely essential to sustain the ideology.  And this is dangerous when truths and facts are denied or innocents are subjugated or brutalized.  As I discussed in Spinoza’s Conjecture:

 

“We all look at the world through our personal lenses of experience.  Our experiences shape our understanding of the world, and ultimately our understanding of [it], then filters what we take in.  The end result is that we may reject or ignore new and important information simply because it does not conform to our previously held beliefs.

Because of these innate tendencies, we must make additional effort to step away from what we believe to be true in order to discover the truth.

There has been a lot of talk in the media about the forthcoming DSM-5 and the diagnosis of Autism.  The DSM-5 is the Fifth Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual used by Doctors to make diagnoses pertaining to Autism and other behavioral and mental health disorders.  There are in fact two major changes in this newest edition regarding Autism.  The first has to do with changes to the name of the diagnosis.  The second has to do with the actual diagnostic criteria used to make a diagnosis.

Currently, when presented with a child who exhibits some characteristics of Autism, Doctors have to determine whether or not the child exhibits a sufficient array of clinically significant symptoms to warrant a diagnosis.  This process requires the clinician to rule out other disorders that may instead be causing the problematic symptoms.  The clinician also has to make a differential diagnosis to determine which of the Pervasive Developmental Disorders best describes the child.  Many professionals, me included, believe that the dividing lines between the various forms of Autism are difficult to distinguish.  The new DSM does away with this problem by eliminating the different labels (Autistic Disorder, Asperger’s Disorder, PDD-NOS, Childhood Disintegrative Disorder) and instead puts in place a more general term – Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).  Many researchers and clinicians agree that this change is warranted.

When the DSM-5 is published in May of 2013, children who previously would have been diagnosed with Autistic Disorder, Asperger’s Disorder, or PDD-NOS, will be given the new diagnosis – Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD).  A differentiation will then be made by indicating the degree of symptom severity.  Specifically, those with more classical Autism will be diagnosed with ASD-Severe.  At the other end of the spectrum, children diagnosed with Pervasive Developmental Disorder – Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS) will likely get an ASD-Mild designation.  Those with Asperger’s may fall anywhere from ASD-Severe to ASD-Mild, depending on the degree of impairment.  Many with Asperger’s will likely fall in the Moderate range.  To be clear however, Classical Autism may span Severe to Mild ASD while PDD-NOS will likely span Moderate to Mild ASD.  Again, the severity designation depends on the number and severity of symptoms present.  If your child already carries a diagnosis, little will change, except perhaps how professionals refer to the disorder itself.   Your child will be referred to as being on the Autistic Spectrum.

The second change involves a modification of the Diagnostic Criterion used to provide a diagnosis.  When making a diagnosis, a clinician such as myself, has to have evidence of a sufficient array of behaviors listed in the DSM in order to provide a diagnosis.  The behaviors commonly associated with Autism make up the list of Diagnostic Criterion in the manual.  The new DSM includes an update of the behaviors used as these criteria.  It defines ASD by two sets of core features, namely: 1) impaired social communication and social interactions; and 2) restricted and repetitive behavior and interests. It more appropriately reorganizes the symptoms in these domains and adds sensory interests and sensory aversions to the list.

The new version is touted as an improvement because it adds to and reorganizes the diagnostic criterion so that they better address the needs of people with ASD across all developmental levels and ages.  It also includes improvements to better address the atypical symptom presentation of girls.  The goal of DSM-5 is to apply what is detailed in the scientific literature so as to add precision and validity to the diagnostic process.

As with any change, there have been some concerns expressed in the media.  Perhaps the most frequently heard concern is the fear that those at the mildest end of the spectrum with strong cognitive capabilities will no longer qualify for the diagnosis and thus may lose services.  Advocacy groups such as Autism Speaks have been actively engaging in this reorganization process and the American Psychiatric Association (the publisher of the DSM) has made statements aimed to calm the concerns.  They suggest that clinical judgment remains a crucial piece of the diagnostic process and that the new criteria are designed to be completely inclusive of those diagnosed using the current DSM-IV.  The research released by the American Psychiatric Association shows improved reliability and validity of diagnoses using the DSM-5 and strong inclusiveness of those already diagnosed using the DSM-IV.  I have seen the proposed diagnostic criterion and upon review I did not have any serious concerns with regard to how it will affect my ability to make diagnoses.

The bottom line is that for most parents, there will be no appreciable change other than how we refer to your child.  In anticipation of this change we have already been using the phrase Autism Spectrum Disorder or “on the spectrum” for quite some time now.  Diagnoses in the near term will still be made using the current DSM-IV, and thus, we will still be using the terms Autistic Disorder, Asperger’s Disorder, and PDD-NOS.   It is advisable for clinicians/diagnosticians to commence using both sets of terminology so as to minimize confusion in the future.  Sharing a document such as this one with the parents of the newly diagnosed is also advised.