Crazy People

Been pretty busy with a new job and bar hopping, not a lot of time for reading or research, so I thought I'd tell about something that happened to me yesterday, at the Seven-Eleven. So, I was there at the 7-11 because there is a photocopy machine there, and I needed to photocopy some claim forms for my health insurance, and needed copies. So, I'm at the copy machine, minding my own business, when I notice some guy watching me out of the corner of my eye. I ignore him, and keep photocopying, until he says "Yeah, I have to deal with that fucking company too." I look at him questioningly, and he says, "That health insurance company - I'm out on workers comp, and those fuckers and thier fucking lawyers are keeping me from getting my money. Those fucking bastards." So I go along with his insane rant, figuring that any detectable signs of annoyance/disgust/fear would put me in a difficult position with this insane man, and he starts talking to me about the rest of his apparently pathetic life. "I don't have any friends, I'm all alone, I'm really lonely. I got nobody. I can't imagine if the next 28 years are going to be like this." So I'm trying to find a way out of this conversation, but he has me locked like a deer in the maniacal headlights that are his eyes, and so he goes on.

"Yeah, we live to be like 75 now, so I've got like 28 years left of this shit. I'm 46, man, I still got a ways to go, and my life is shit. You must be about my age, yeah? You know what I mean?"

"Uh, no, I'm thirty." I say.

"Thirty? Christ, you must have had a tough life", he says to me. Fucking crazy people.

Leadership in TV fiction

I've gotten into the habit over the past 2 years or so of renting entire TV series on DVD, and watching them over the course of a few months. Always ready to put on my amateur psychologist's cap, I've noticed quite a few things. One thing that I've noticed is the near perfect combinations of personality types on the various Star Trek shows. To give the short version, the personalities of the various captains are perfect for the situations that they are put in over the course of the series - the by-the-book Janeway is the perfect type of captain for a ship lost without any support or structure to function in (she creates this structure), the calculating and knowledgable Picard is perfect for functioning in a fairly well known political environment (He knows the key aspects of every culture, and he knows the rules and regulations inside out, and can manipulate both with keen political effectiveness), and the obnoxious Archer is the perfect choice for stepping out into the unknown to build up an alliance (in his goofy and obnoxious way, he's the perfect conduit for garnering support - he's intuitive, sensitive, empathic, and trusting).

Furthermore, thier support staff always compliments them - the touchy-feely Chakotay offsets the overly strict and structure-obsessed Janeway, the logical Spock offsets the risk-taking Kirk.

All of this is interesting from a psychological standpoint, because in real life, the leader is hardly ever suited for thier environment, and thier support staff is as likely to be oppositional as complimentary - and one has to compliment the writers of these shows for intuitively creating the perfect character to lead in thier specific circumstances, and the perfect support staff to compliment them. Any of these captains put in any other captain's shoes would not be nearly as effective as the are in thier own roles.

So, although there is always talk of this "utopian star trek universe", all it really is is just a function of the right personality leading the right people in the right circumstances. This doesn't just go for Star Trek - You'll see the same thing in Stargate, SG-1 with Col. Jack O'Neil - although in his case he is a little less suited for the circumstances, but his support staff is nearly flawless in it's ability to turn any situation around. This would be contrasted with a character driven show like "Lost", where the personality clashes are one of the focal points of the drama, and probably a more realistic version of leadership in the modern day - regardless of how effective a leader like Jack Shephard may be, it would be too contrived if the people around him all had complimentary personalities. Of course, unlike Star Trek, or SG-1, the characters on Lost did not intend to be thrown together in the first place.

So, it is my theory that in real life, be it in business, the military, or whatever - if you can get the "perfect leader" for the situation at hand, and give them the "perfect" support staff, you can't lose. I am looking at this from a personality perspective - some situations demand a dedicated, rulebound autocrat who commands respect (I.E. Janeway), and others demand a flexible, risk-taking leader who interprets the rules to fit his needs (I.E. Kirk), or someone who is introspective, intuitive, empathic, and yet decisive (I.E. Sisko).

Oddly enough (or perhaps not), if you look at these leaders through the lens of the Five Factor model of personality or the Myers-Briggs Type indicator, you'll see that most fit the "High Openness to Experience" [iNtuitive, by the MBTI] (Except, of course, Janeway), which is ironic because in the general population that single factor shows up in only about 1 in 4 people, whereas all of the other factors are about equal at 50%.

Why is this important to note? Because in general, people with High Openness (iNtuitives) do not end up in positions of power - they tend to be very good at seeing the big picture, which thier superiors usually can not. This often gets them into trouble, and precludes them from promotions. So you are left with the Peter Principle - people who rise to thier level of incompetence. People who are close minded and detail obsessed promote the same. (There are many psychology studies done on the promotion or hiring of people who display similar personality traits - if I find one online, I'll post it.) So, in a way, the Star Trek universe IS a utopia - because of the absolute ubiquitousness of open-minded people in positions of command.

And the problem on this planet today - the lack of open minded people in leadership in business and the world.

Blog post on Kava

I came across THIS link to an informational post on the Kava root. Worth a read.

More Books

Went to Border's Books today and ended up buying two books:

The Mind and the Brain- Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force
J. Schwartz, 2002

Jungian Psychology Unplugged
D. Sharp, 1998

I have this problem - if I go into a bookstore without a pre-planned purchase in mind, I tend to spend money I don't have. The above two books are a result of that situation. The first one looked interesting - books about the brain always fascinate me, the sort by Ramachandran and Oliver Sacks. When I see other books that look like they are along those lines, I usually get a compulsion to buy them. The second one was purely an impulse buy - it says it is a "comprehensive overview of Jung's basic concepts and thier application", and I can always use a brush-up on the basics.

No to Clinical Psychology

Clinical psychology doesn't interest me. I hate people enough as it is, no need to exacerbate that by having to deal with the least balanced of them on a day to day basis. I'm far more interested in the theoretical, the "whys" and the "ahas" - the interesting little discoveries that explain the stupid and illogical things that people do every day. I see managers abusing thier employees and treating them like property, to be replaced at a moment's notice, I see employers with no tolerance for creative, big picture oriented employees - one of my interests is of course industrial psychology, and the irony is, I've seen so many books and articles that would give employers effective tools in balancing employee satisfaction and work goals, but employers are completely ignorant of it. Spare the baseball bat, spoil the employee, I suppose. But it is disenheartening, a lot of these books and studies have been around for 30 years, and no one notices them. Employers always have the attitude that thier employees are uneducated, and so keep the environment authoritarian and treat them like retarded stepchildren. One of the reasons why I have so much trouble holding a job - I can't function in an authoritarian environment where you are treated like a retarded 8 year old, particularly when it is by someone less educated and less intelligent than you are. And if they are less intelligent than I am, than wow, they are in trouble.

Well, all that was sort of random. But I tend to ramble.

Interview on Anxiety

I found an interview on anxiety at 'the little students corner of the web' (although I accidentaly posted my own comment to the post directly below it, rather than to the post itself) . Basically, it talks about treatments for anxiety, but it has some interesting points - namely, the difference between "anxiety" and "fear". It states:

"Fear is a present-orientated emotion, typically in reaction to some sudden threat to one's integrity. It's best recognized by the fight-or flight response, or a strong urge to engage in the emotion-driven behavior of escape. It's an immediate response, and it's best characterized by the experience that something terrible is happening to me right now, and I need to take some immediate action to get out of here"

and that:

"Anxiety, on the other hand, is focused on something that might happen in the future that one needs to be worried about. It's a focus on a potential future threat. An individual is motivated by the emotion to get ready for the potential threat, and the typical action tendencies or emotion driven behaviors are to become more vigilant, size up the threat, and worry about the various outcomes. It's not happening right now; it's something that's going to happen soon, anywhere from the next several minutes to the next several months. And the purpose of that emotion is readiness, to get people ready to deal effectively with an upcoming threat."

So I'm left wondering if that terror you feel before a job interview or on the way to the manager's office for disciplinary action is "anxiety", and the terror you feel when you get there is "fear", and if the disctinction really matters. - or maybe I just suffer from PTSD and have an exaggerated reaction to everything. The Dr. also notes that the "treatment of choice" are psychological treatments, because of the negative side effects of drugs. Theoretically, that is where Kava comes in. The study I am helping to come up with doesn't address that aspect, but I know there is much interest there, and I'd like to get into that at some point. As I think I've mentioned before, Kava doesn't really have any negative side effects - aside from possible but as of yet unproven liver damage - and people don't build up a tolerance to it. When I first got in on the Kava research, I didn't find the prospect of mixing psychology and pharmacology all that interesting - I'm more of a social-personality-industrial person, but as things progress, I'm getting all sorts of ideas and interests.

"Robber's Cave"

I've been reading up on the background to Sherif's "Robber's Cave" experiment. It seems to have developed over 5 or 6 years, with lots of theories and a failed attempt or two to put it together. The final study went on for a few weeks, so it is pretty large scale, not something I think could be duplicated for what I'm looking for.

One thing I notice (and has been brought to my attention by more personality-centered people) is that psychologists tend to try to make thier studies and results "generalizable" - like, if your group is large enough, or if you do enough studies, it will be generalizable to everyone and anyone. This approach ignores people's personalities. The MBTI people are really fervent about this - generalizable results give you an "average" person - but what is an average person? Mainly, they believe that the biggest trait that needs to be accounted for in any study is introversion versus extraversion - Introverts and extroverts react differently. So my pet theory then (and maybe what the MBTI people are trying to say) is that you can have "generalizable" results to introverts and extroverts - sort of like two results for every study - the "introvert" results and the "extroverts" results.

Anyway, I getting back to the subject - Sherif's group tried to make the study generalizable by doing the following:

One of the objectives of concentrating on small group research should be attainment of valid generalizations which can be applied, at least in their essentials, to any group and to the behavior of individual members. Accordingly, one of our first tasks was that of extracting some minimum essential features of actual small groups from sociological work. In this task there is a methodological advantage in concentrating on informally organized groups, rather than formally organized groups in which the leader or head and other positions with their respective responsibilities are appointed by a higher authority, such as a commanding officer or board. In informally organized groups, group products and the particular individuals who occupy the various positions are determined to a much greater extent by the actual interaction of individuals. If care is taken at the beginning to refer to the general setting in which small groups form and function, their products and structure can be traced through longitudinal observation of the interaction process.

The results of the "Robber's Cave" study do seem to be generalizable, but I do think that the "personality" psych people have a point, but I think it depends on the specifics of the situation, and the makeup and size of the group.

My Blog

I've been working on getting into grad school for Psychology for about 18 months now, and this blog will chronicle my journey (hopefully) into a graduate program - hence the "theoretical trek" in the title of my blog.

NOTE TO SELF:
First, let's see if I can successfully apply to a grad school program at the end of 2007.
Second, let's see if I'm insane for even wanting to get into a grad school program.

The first year of my own study was dedicated to reading every textbook, 'classic', and study I could get my hands on (including Jung, Freud, Skinner, Erikson, and more), to prepare for the Psychology GRE (as well as the general GRE test). My reading seems to have paid off, I pulled off a 700 (85th percentile total - 95th percentile in social psychology, 78th percentile in experimental psychology). Not bad at all for someone who majored in Political Science, and got an MBA. Also got into the 94th percentile for my verbal score, but my math score was considerably less - and that damn subjective 'analytical writing' section was a disaster. I've looked at example tests for the old "Analytical" test, and I would have excelled at that, however they've done away with it and I get stuck having to write two random essays, subjectively graded by some random people sitting in an office somewhere grading thousands of those things. Suffice it to say, I was not happy with that particular experience.

Most of this study was done on my own, reading somehwere around 40 books and textbooks over the course of 11 months to prep for the Psych GRE.
My actual Psychology classes to date consist of:

Intro to Psychology
Organizational Behavior
Intro to Psychology 1
Intro to Psychology 2
Personality Psychology

Personality Psychology was my most recent class, taken at the Community College level (hey, it's cheap) - and frankly, after all of my reading, I got an A in the class barely opening the book. I was able to do all of the writing more or less off the top of my head.

I am currently working with Dr. Kelley of Hawaii Pacific University on the Traditional Hawaiian herb "Kava" (he's also working on a study on cellphone use in self help groups). Right now I'm trying to assist in coming up with an experiment to test the effects of Kava in conflict resolution. Kava was apparently used by the native Hawaiians for centuries during negotiation to resolve conflict. Apparently most, or all, of the studies to date have focused more on the chemical properties than the psychological effects. Kava has strong anxiolytic (anti-anxiety) properties (and having self-experimented, I can attest to its effectiveness), so Dr. Kelley wants to focus on the psychological effects in an experimental setting.

My first thought when tasked with coming up for ideas for experiments was Sherif's classic "Robber's Cave" study. He essentially created two groups of boys at a summer camp, and manufactured competition and conflict between them. Things got so bad that it seemed there would be no way to reconcile the two groups, until he put them to work on superordinate goals - goals that they had to accomplish together, basically in order to survive. It worked. So my thought was, replace superordinate goals with Kava - sort of a "Robber's Kava" experiment. It is proving to be very difficult to figure out how to do this. I'll get into the details of my ideas later.