(Un)necessary psychological stuff

[whatthef__k]

Hey guys!

I want to start a new thread here – the "(Un)necessary psychological stuff" thread.
From time to time, I'll post some facts and theories that I became acquainted with... As you may have guessed from the title of this thread, at least some of my posts won't be too serious or scientific

Please don't hesitate to share your facts and theories as well! And of course I hope you'll join the discussion; or at least find some facts entertaining/good to know/etc.

 

[whatthef__k]

The Fundamental Attribution Error

Some psychologists believe humans share a basic set of physiological and psychological needs. As one of these, our need for safety is the reason why we act like scientist: We try to explain to ourselves how and why certain events happened and try to predict whether they are likely to occur again or not. Simply said, we're control freaks. More or less.
We just want to know whatthef__k () is going on.

In social psychology, attribution is a concept referring to how individuals explain causes of events and behaviors. There are mainly two key players in a social scene, actors and observers. Actors are people who produce behavior; observers are people who perceive behavior. As an active observer of the events, we continuously and spontaneously make causal inferences on why the events occur. Why is he acting like an asshole? –– Why doesn't Paris Hilton act like an adult? Just once? –– Why am I that arrogant asshole that I am? (Right, we're even trying to explain our own behavior. Well, at least sometimes.) Eventually, these inferences become beliefs or expectations that allow the person to predict and understand the events that they observe and experience.

By now you've probably noticed that an actor's behavior is the psychologically important element in a social scene we try to explain. Generally, there are two different ways to do so –– we can either assume personality based (internal) or situational (external) reasons. When an internal attribution is made, the cause of the given behavior is assigned to the actor's personality, attitudes and character. An external attribution links the cause of the given behavior to the situation in which the behavior occurred (i.e., that the actor did so because of the surrounding environment or the social situation).

These two types of attribution lead to very different perceptions of the individual engaging in a behavior. An external attribution makes us assume that a certain behavior primarily occurred because situational factors 'made' an individual act in the observed way; the actor is less 'accountable' for what he/she did. Focusing on the prediction part of our explanation, an external attribution implies an actor will show the observed behavior in a situational context that is quite similar to the observed situation. In contrast, an internal attribution directly links a certain behavior to the actor's personality with the result that we believe he/she is more 'accountable' for his/her actions. Therefore, an internal attribution allows us to predict an individual's actions independently of situational features. In other words, our prediction is more stable as we don't need to consider how an actor will behave in a certain situation, we just 'know' what he/she will do as it is part of his/her personality.


So far, so good.


But here's the tricky part... Can you imagine what our brain –– that damned smart little bastard –– does in order to fulfill your need for safety? Huh?

It paves the way for a psychological phenomenon called the fundamental attribution error. The fundamental attribution error describes the tendency to over-value personality based explanations for observed behaviors while under-valuing situational explanations for those behaviors.

As internal attributions are more stable and therefore serve our need for safety, we overestimate the degree the actor's personality influences his/her behavior. We are much more influenced by situational variables than we believe! Particularly when we behave 'badly', personality-based inferences are commonly made instead of valuing the situation's influence on behavior.
Or, to be more precise, especially others are much more influenced by situational factors than we believe. Err, why especially others, you're asking? Well, remember our brain, that smart-ass?! When we ourselves behave 'badly', it generally makes situational attributions instead of personality-based attributions to protect our self-esteem!


So here's my advice: Think situational!
When making assumptions about that guy who acts like an asshole or Paris Hilton behaving like a 12-year-old, ask yourself what situational variables may caused their behavior. (Well, in regard to Paris Hilton... Forget it…)

 

[Daedalus]

Very interesting subject-matter wtf, but one critical caveat: any attempt to typify or categorise the human psyche might well lead to over-simplification. In your examination of the various, rather ambitious theories and definitions (within Clinical Psychology) try to retain a sense of the ineffability and paradoxical terrain that is the human mind. You say "ome psychologists believe humans share a basic set of physiological and psychological needs." The key word is share. But commonality can often, at least as far as human beings are concerned, be bound up with diversity and complexity. A good example or theorethical illustration of this is the Language Acquisition Device (L.A.D. --cf. Noam Chomsky). The L.A.D., if it exists or is 'real' (psysiological?) treats of the basic human need for communication in terms of commonality and sameness. Steven Pinker (M.I.T.) --who studied under Chomsky-- makes special reference to the sheer diversity of human language, or how it is that a single individual can typically acquire an expansive and adaptive vocabulary. With respect to linguistic acquisition, physical ability, cognition, intentionality, human morality, or emotionality... it would seem that human being, whether conceived of in individual or collective terms, is truly inexplicable and even, dare I say it, mysterious (i.e. metaphysical?).
One critical task, it seems, is to somehow always be properly cognisant of a potentially overwhelming complexity, with respect to the various aspects, needs, drives, motives, etc., of humanity, such that a vast multiplicity of inter-related behaviours and devices are not reduced to mere statistical significance?
So there you go... consider giving special attention to (i) Chomsky (ii) Pinker and also (iii) Karl Popper (on the problematic nature of scientific methodology). I'm also trying to recall a particularly good text book on the social sciences (plus social psychology)... :thinking: I'll check my book shevles and get back to you! In any event it's xmas time... so put the feet up and give your mind a rest too!

 

[diklik]

I had a very interesting and off-the-wall Psych professor. In essence, he declared that studying the past work of other figures in Psychology was nice, but it led nowhere. His assertion was that one needs to be constantly discovering the variableness of the human genome that surrounds us every moment of our lives. If there is a similarity, it may be due to the "rubbing-off factor"......assimilation of character attributes by conscious or sub-conscious mimicry. Gang members tend to pick up the traits of the leader(s) of a gang, merely by being around them and copying what they see and hear. In that instance, it's survivalistic and ego-supportive to mimic. It may occur for other reasons with other individuals or groups.

My Prof in clinical Psych wanted to impress upon his classes the need to treat humans not as textbook models that have been generalized into a format, but patients who - although they have similar symptoms or a syndrome that is recognizable - still have individual needs. Trying to boil it down, in my thinking, is an over-simplification: which may lead to erroneous conclusions.

just sayin'

 

[whatthef__k]

That's what I love about psychology… Ask five psychologists what they think about a certain problem and you'll get ten different answers


You both made some excellent points, Putin and diklik. I appreciate your comments.

Our mind is exceptionally complex and difficult to understand. There is much diversity in how people experience their environment and in how they act as a result of these experiences. Nevertheless, I am convinced there are many similarities as well. And these similarities are the basis of psychological theorizing.
Let me take Chomsky's Language Acquisition Device as an example. Chomsky postulated the LAD is a congenital system that supports language acquisition. Indeed, the extent of diversity in human language makes every single one of us appear unique in respect of our verbal abilities. But beside these differences, we all have at least one thing in common: The LAD, or, to be more precise, the functional principle of the LAD. A child receives verbal input from its environment. The LAD analyzes this input and derives hypotheses on language structure. Based on a construct these hypotheses, the child learns to understand and use a certain language.
Let us assume two different children receive exactly the same verbal input from their environments. Their LADs will analyze the given input identically; and their verbal abilities will develop to the same level. Therefore, observed differences in verbal ability are an output variable that vary due to different input, but the basic linguistic principles are the same.
In regard to the fundamental attribution error, we all differ in the degree of how important the need for safety is to us. But we all show the tendency to prefer personality-based attributions. Some more, some less.
At least that's what I believe… But like Descartes once said, you're welcome to doubt my beliefs

I'd be happy to hear of that textbook you mentioned in your post, Putin.


I'm not a huge fan of simplistic solutions of complex problems either.
Three days ago, I was able to listen to a talk given by Eric Kandel, recipient of the 2000 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine. At the end of his talk, he said, "Most complex problems can't be solved easily. But when we can't solve a complex problem straight away, we have to simplify it, develop solution strategies and examine whether they apply for the complex problem as well."
I think he made a pretty good point.

I appreciate the individualistic approach you mentioned, diklik. However, I don't comprehend classificatory and individualistic approaches as irreconcilable opposites. Whoever thinks labels can exhaustively describe an individual is an idiot. But they are useful as a guide.

 

[whatthef__k]

Amputation on Demand: Body Integrity Identity Disorder

Tom is a 39-year-old teacher who had his left completely healthy leg electively amputated above the knee 4 years ago.

Tom has always felt that having two arms and two legs made him 'incomplete' and that the amputation has, paradoxically, finally made him 'feel complete'. Although he reports that the main reason for the amputation was to make him 'whole'. He reports that prior to amputation his left leg did not feel any different from his other limbs nor did he perceive it to be ugly or deformed.

Tom first sought psychological treatment at age 29 years. He began weekly insight-oriented psychotherapy and also was prescribed trials of a variety of antidepressants, anti-OCD medications and antipsychotic medications.
Deciding (after 18 months of treatment) that the psychiatric profession had nothing to offer him, he commenced his quest to find a surgeon who would be willing to do the amputation electively. He arranged for consultations with two psychologists in order to doent that he had no other psychiatric conditions and that the psychologists supported the surgical option. He then presented various surgeons with the limited literature about this condition and the results of the psychological evaluations. During this time, pessimistic that he would never find a surgeon willing to perform the amputation, he tried (unsuccessfully) to crush his left leg under weights. Finally after 2 years of trying, he found a general surgeon who agreed to do the surgery.

Four years after the amputation, Tom reports no regrets whatsoever about having had the surgery: 'My only regret is that I did not have it done sooner.'

Adapted from Frist, M. B. (2005). Desire for amputation of a limb: paraphilia, psychosis, or a new type of identity disorder. Psychological Medicine, 35, 919–928.

I would like to start by saying that the only thing we know for sure about the condition described above is that we know very little, thus far.

Body integrity identity disorder (BIID) is an extremely rare condition where the mere presence of a healthy part of the body is associated with severe cognitive and emotional distress. This discomfort is so strong that it interferes with daily functioning and, in a majority of cases, BIID patients are motivated to seek amputation of the limb.

The most prominent psychological hypothesis states that the occurrence of body integrity identity disorder involves a mismatch between the patient’s body and his body image. One’s body image is a consciously accessible representation of the general shape, structure, and functionality of one’s body.
One important fact is that a BIID patient seeking amputation does not believe that his healthy limb is diseased or exceedingly ugly. Instead, he is motivated to achieve a fit between his body and his body image.

Some interesting facts about BIID:

• The perceived mismatch between body and body image is not of delusional quality as in psychotic disorders like Schizophrenia. Although a patient seems not to experience a limb as belonging to his (mental) body image, he does not form the corresponding delusional belief that it does not belong to his (physical) body. Likewise, a BIID patient is aware that his desires are seen as irrational by others.
• The desire for amputation is unlikely to be caused by an (unconscious) craving for increased social attention. BIID patients who undergo surgery often wear a prosthesis in order to obtain or regain normal functioning.
• Although one's body image is consciously accessible, psychotherapy seems not to be effective. According to a survey, 34 of 52 BIID patients had been in psychotherapy, only 18 told their therapists about their desire for amputation and none of these patients reported a reduction in the intensity of the desire. Psychopharmacological treatment is not effective either.

So what's the adequate therapy for BIID?
Most experts actually recommend amputation. They reason their point of view as follows:

• BIID patients' desires are not delusional.
• When a surgeon refuses amputation to BIID patients, a significant proportion of them will persist in their desire for amputation and will go on to take matters into their own hands. Via Internet forums patients often discuss relatively painless and safe ways of amputating limbs, or damaging them sufficiently to ensure that surgeons have no choice but to amputate. Given the risk of extensive injury or death, professional surgery is seen to be the least of all evils.
• Most BIID patients who undergo amputation do not develop the desire for additional amputations (in contrast to individuals who have had cosmetic surgery). Nor do such patients develop phantom limbs.

By now, body integrity identity disorder is not recognized by either DSM-IV or ICD-10.


(For further information see Bayne, T. & Levy, N. (2005). Amputees by choice: body integrity identity disorder and the ethics of amputation. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 22, 75-86.)

 

[diklik]

You both made some excellent points, Putin and diklik. I appreciate your comments...................
I appreciate the individualistic approach you mentioned, diklik. However, I don't comprehend classificatory and individualistic approaches as irreconcilable opposites. Whoever thinks labels can exhaustively describe an individual is an idiot. But they are useful as a guide.

I wouldn't dispute (developing a label) as a basic guidepost toward effective therapy that really helps the patient. However, far too often the label is an end unto itself, serving nothing else but as a convenient niche placement, and a method for a less-than-professional mental health worker to shelve the patient into a dead-end course of non-therapy.

Can you tell that I am not overly enthused with most of the mental health profession!!

 

[whatthef__k]

Can you tell that I am not overly enthused with most of the mental health profession!!

Yes, I can. Definitely But even "mental health profession" is a label...

Non-professionals can misuse every development, every invention and everything else that has been conceived for good. But that doesn't necessarily mean we should be overly skeptical towards the development/invention or the misuser's profession but towards the misuser.