I have a couple of draft posts, soon to be published. They would have been up by now, but my laptop crashed last week and I had to get a new one. Not only that, but when it crashed, it took my senior thesis with it. So I spent many hours transcribing the 20 pages I have so far while also trying to meet new deadlines. Luckily, I have an extremely understanding and immensely awesome thesis professor.

So in this deficit of psygeek posting, here is a video I found intriguing:

Here's the link to the original article the video comes from. I'm not sure I agree with her about the whole genius outside of the body, feeding you this creativity that makes your work marvelous, but I think she makes excellent points about the burdens of being labeled a genius and about what it's like to make great works.

Do you believe that dreams have meaning? Or do you think that dream material is a product of the random firing of neurons in the brain which is then translated into some sort of dream, and given a plot? I think it's ridiculous that anyone might think that dreams have no inherent meaning at all.

If they didn't have meaning, why would we have wish fulfillment dreams? When we're really excited for that rock concert that's coming up, we dream of going to the concert and having the time of our lives. Trauma victims often relive their experiences in dreams, over and over. When we're stressed out and need a break, we have dreams of going on vacation and sipping martinis on the beach. If dreams didn't have any meaning, they wouldn't make any sort of sense.

The first marker in knocking down this argument is the simple fact that, even if subscribe to the theory that dreams are the product of the random firing of neurons in the brain, there would still have to be some meaning to them because the neurons that would fire would most likely be the ones that see more activation when we're awake; they would probably be closely related to what we think about all day long. We see something strange, it stands out, when we go to bed, we dream about it. That's pretty straightforward. Our dreams would still be based upon our experiences and what we know.

The notion is silly, is what it is. It's entirely possibly that I'm biased, I take the Freudian perspective for a lot of things. A lot of what Freud has to say in his theory of psychoanalysis makes sense.

I found out fairly recently that my senior thesis was accepted at the WPA Conference in Portland, from April 23 - 26! I'm pretty excited! I'll have a poster there. No formal presentations, I believe. So, if you're in the area, look for a poster there about Isaac Asimov and Compulsive Writing. :-)

Speaking of my senior thesis, it's pretty much soaking up all of my free time when I'm not working on homework for other classes. I'll be formally presenting my thesis at my university on April 22nd, along with most every other senior in my university. It's nerve-wracking and completely exciting experience at the same time. I'll have to start giving fake speeches and practicing so I don't sound like a stuttering fool. Maybe I'll get someone to record it and then post it up here as youtube video. That could be... scary. I'll have to think about that.

Faith healing is bogus. Prayer does not heal people, and it cannot miraculously make people better. There are two arguments when it comes to medicine, in my view:

1. If there is a God, he gave us science which led to Doctors and modern medicine. We should go to these Doctors to make us better when we are ill, and thank them when we are healthy.
2. There isn't a God. We found science to be the best method of making discoveries about the world around us. Our discoveries have led us to modern medicine, and Doctors.

I've been following the Kara Neumann case for some time. I find what the parents have done to be absolutely atrocious. It's completely inexcusable.

"Ask your doctor if [insert name of drug] is right for you today."

I strongly detest pharmaceutical ads. I can kind of see what the originating idea behind the ads might have been: to inform people about the various pharmaceuticals available to them, to let them know about beta drugs and other options, and so that people might feel informed about the drugs they're using. But it feels more and more like the ads are just trying to sell the drugs. And the drugs are usually directed at the "popular" disorders: depression and bipolar disorder.

While I understand that the purpose of these ads is to inform people of the multiple options available to them, I can't help but notice that it also has the potential to make it more difficult for therapists. They'll get clients who'll saunter in, thinking they know what drug they need - the one they saw on the commercial, and demand it. Sometimes, if they don't get what they want, they'll switch therapists until they find one that will.

That is no way to treat a disorder.

There are many different factors that go into each of these disorders. Depression is a multi-faceted beast. It can be an imbalance of chemicals in the brain, it can be that the person has gone through some traumatic experiences, it could be a slow build up of stressors, etc. The list does go on. And these ads perpetuate the belief that a drug can fix it, make it better. Sometimes it can. But if the depression is because of life-events, it's a natural reaction, and it needs to be worked through. I'm not saying that drugs should not be used along side it. Sometimes, that's necessary.

But more and more, it feels like in our culture people want a quick fix - I'm depressed, so I'll just take this pill and I'll be good again. Nevermind the experiences that may have triggered the depression. We want instantaneous relief of our pains and worries. We're not going to get it simply through pills.

If we want relief, we have to work through our problems. Maybe with medication, maybe without it. But we have to also recognize that at some point, we'll need to take that medication away. For myself, I've always found that meditation works wonders.

I like what the authors of this survey are trying to do: create a survey that, instead of measuring the negative aspects of one's character, shows the positive aspects. I know a lot of people who think that psychologists essentially diagnose what's wrong with people and then try to fix them. The DSM-IV surely doesn't help tear down the illusion either, since it's the criteria we use to identify disorders in patients. So creating a survey that shows people their strengths is commendable.

However, I have a tiny disagreement with one attribute on this strength survey: faith.

I don't disagree that people may find strength in religion. I do disagree that not having faith implies a lack of strength. I know many atheists (myself included) who find strength in their lack of belief in a God(s). Some of the faith based questions are ambiguous, and simply ask about spirituality. One of the statements adds an element of meditation alongside prayer. I do meditate; it's something I picked up from Buddhism, and I consider myself a secular Buddhist, or a Buddhist without a God or some other divine power. This one was a little less of a problem, since meditation doesn't necessarily imply faith. However, there was one question which directly asked belief in God or some divine power. Answering negatively on this one pretty much ensured that faith would not be one of my strengths.

The questions on the survey ask about behaviors that most people find desirable. But I think it's inaccurate to view someone without faith as weak in some way, as lacking in strength in some way. Just because atheists do not believe in religion, or go to church, or pray, does not mean that they suffer from some weakness. Some people of faith may disagree, but they would be wrong to disagree. A lot of the atheists I know place that faith elsewhere, though "faith" is probably the wrong word: science, reason, humanity, love, goodness as derived from ourselves and not some higher power.

So while I agree with the intentions of the survey, I do not agree with the choice to view lack of religion as something that is not considered strong.

Naturally, faith was at the bottom of my list. My top five character strengths were:

1. Curiosity and interest in the world
2. Creativity, ingenuity, and originality
3. Judgment, critical thinking, and open-mindedness
4. Perspective (wisdom)
5. Honesty, authenticity, and genuineness

I like my list as is stands.

This article is a great read: Eight Myths about Video Game Play.

Video game playing has been attacked by the media (among others) as something which promotes violence in youth. This is just wrong. If you look at the statistics, far more non-violent people play video games than do violent people. Or rather, most of the people who play video games are not violent people and most likely won't bring a gun to school and shoot up their friends because Counterstrike made them believe it was cool.

It irks me when the media blames violence on media. I also find it ironic.

This is from a paper I wrote for a peace and conflict studies class. It's not strictly psychology, but I did talk a little bit about the Milgram Obedience Study in making my point. I edited the original copy upon finding some grammatical errors, but that was the extent.

Before I paste my paper in, I do want to clarify my religious position. I am an atheist, specifically a secular humanist. I follow the Buddhist philosophy of living life. I do not think any one religion is superior to all other religions. For one thing, I do not know enough about religion to make that kind of claim. What I do believe, however, is that religious interference into politics and public interactions can and often does create large problems. I firmly believe that no one religion has the right answer and that, without God(s) coming down and showing themselves to us, pointing at a specific religion as the right one, it is impossible to know which religion is the right one. I do respect people's right to be religious; I do not think people have the right to inflict their religion and beliefs upon others out of moral superiority.

The thesis of my paper is: Religion is not the problem; rather, it acts as an enabler, giving rise to preachers asking for blind obedience instead of embracing an intellectual process. The problem lies in the adherents of the religion buying into absolute truth claims and blindly obeying.

“Authentic religion engages the intellect as people wrestle with mystery of existence and the challenges of living in an imperfect world,” (Kimball 82). Religion starts out as a new, often progressive, way of thinking, usually with morals of how people should live and treat each other. In its infancy, Christianity was revolutionary with Jesus’ teachings of peace and love for the enemy as well as the neighbor. It began as religion centered upon a pacifistic mind-set before it was legalized in the 4th century by Constantine. After that, Christian warriors began appearing in the Roman army. More and more, Christians became missionaries obsessed with spreading the word to world, convinced of the rightness of their religion over any other religion. This is counter-intuitive to the foundational basis of religion. In my personal experience, religion has served simply as a lens for understanding the world and coming to terms with our inevitable deaths. I have not encountered a religion which I have felt to be the right religion, or even the best religion. The only differences I have seen is the way in which the followers of the religion react to people of other religions, and what the leaders of those religions demand from their followers. Modern Christianity’s adherents strive to rebuke the theory of evolution simply because it is not in line with its doctrine of Genesis. Instead, they invented Creationism and attempted to make it more scientific sounding by calling it Intelligent Design in order to co-opt those members who may be more scientifically oriented. On the opposite side, the Dalai Lama once said that if science and Buddhism clash on ideologies, then it is Buddhism which should reform—not science (Gyatso). In this sense, Christianity and Buddhism reflect polar opposites of the obedience coin: blind and authentic. “Authentic obedience is never blind” (Gray 1) whereas “blind obedience is a sure sign of corrupt religion,” (Kimball 82). The difference between these two religions is one of absolutes. Buddhism has a deep suspicion of absolutes (Gyatso). Incidentally, Gyatso was the Dalai Lama who declared “if the words of the Buddha and the findings of modern science contradict each other, then the former have to go” (Paine). Creationism, on the part of Christianity, does not exemplify the Dalai Lama’s perspective that religion should conform to the empirical findings based on research. Rather, creationism is an underhanded attempt to modify reality to fit a doctrine; it is not an attempt to modify belief in the face of evidence. This is only one way in which Christianity asks for blind obedience from its adherents. However, it is probably one of the most publicized examples and sparks wide-ranging debates in the media and government as to whether or not creationism has a basis in science. While it may be the leaders who may choose to encourage blind obedience, it is the decision of the adherents to go along. “When individual believers abdicate personal responsibility and yield to the authority of a charismatic leader or become enslaved to particular ideas or teachings, religion can easily become the framework for violence and destruction,” (Kimball 82). So how is it that people choose to blindly follow orders given by authority figures? Milgram’s Obedience Study enlightened the world about how peer pressure, particularly from authority, can be very effective. Milgram said that “ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process” (Rupert). One of the most potentially important findings from Milgram’s experiments on obedience is that people easily succumb to peer pressure. In other words, “just say no” is not always enough. This can have an exponential effect: the more people there are who blindly obey, the more likely any given individual following the same doctrine will blindly obey. Blind obedience cannot be blamed on charismatic leadership. “On the contrary, [charismatic leadership] is a vital and central feature of every religious tradition … [Ghandi and King] did not command total obedience to their deeply held beliefs and teachings … Those who embraced their movements did so voluntarily,” (Kimball 93). Charismatic leadership only becomes bad when those leaders demand blind obedience. It becomes worse when people follow. With all of that, where does the rising problem of blind obedience fully come into play? The number of people in the religion does seem to really have an impact, except as a cascading effect. I would say that the majority of the blame for this particular problem lies in the acceptance of absolute truths. Religions which preach absolute truths can rapidly degenerate into religions which demand blind obedience. However, the two are not mutually exclusive; having said that, absolute truths and blind obedience do hang together. Buddhism strives to stay away from and be suspicious of absolute truths, much like science – something the Dalai Lama finds awe-inspiring (Gyatso). According to the Dalai Lama, Buddhism and science share, at the heart, significant commonalities: a deep suspicion of absolute truth, a preference to account for evolution and the “emergence of the cosmos and life in terms of the complex interrelations of the natural laws of cause and effect” (Gyatso), and the role of empiricism as a method of learning and understanding. The key here is the suspicion of absolute truth rather than the acceptance of it. This is what ultimately forms the difference between an open and intellectually inspiring religion, and one which rejects other forms of thought and does not embrace ideologies which do not conform to the absolute truths central to that religion. The problem does not necessarily lie in blind obedience. It would seem that blind obedience is a symptom of absolute truths found within a religion. If the religion does not adhere to absolute truths concerning human behavior, creation, and other ideas, how can it demand blind obedience? It cannot.

References: Kimball, Charles. When Religion Becomes Evil. New York: HarperCollins, 2008. Catholic Canon Law (Gray) Mind and Life Institute (Gyatso) Boston News (Paine) New Life: Milgram (Rupert)