Do people want to know the truth?

If someone told you that something you believed was, in fact, not the truth, would you want to hear them out? According to a recent study, most people are not interested in finding out the truth. Most people would rather find out that what they believe to be the truth is the truth…and nothing but the truth.

In other words, they tend to pay more attention to those who agree with them.

So says a meta-study that was reported recently in Psychological Bulletin published by the American Psychological Association. The research project was led by professors at the University of Illinois and the University of Florida and included data from 91 studies involving nearly 8,000 participants.

The studies they reviewed generally queried participants about their opinions on a given topic and then allowed them to choose whether they wanted to view or read information that backed up their opinions or information that opposed them. The result: people are likely to select information that supports their point of view 67% of the time and are willing to consider opposing viewpoints only 33% of the time.

The study found that people are least interested in new points of view when their own views are associated with political or religious ideas. “If you are really committed to your own attitude—for example, if you are a very committed Democrat, you are more likely to seek congenial information, that is, information that corresponds with your views,” noted one of the authors, Deloris Albarracin.

When it comes to religion and politics, people tend to prefer viewing or reading information that is in agreement with their own thinking 70% of the time.

Cognitive psychologists—those who study the way people process and interpret information—refer to the tendency of sticking to an old way of looking at things and resisting a new or different way, as a “mental set.” This recent research appears to confirm the theory of the mental set.

Mental sets can hinder both individuals and groups in a range of ways. Mental sets come into play, for example, when you are trying to solve a problem in algebra. You keep trying again and again to find the solution and yet you can never find it. You go to sleep frustrated, and when you awake you suddenly try something completely different and, wham! You have the answer.

However, mental sets can be most harmful when it comes to human problems. A husband and wife continually have the same argument and neither will see the other side. Ethnic groups can’t stop feeling superior to each other. Liberals and conservatives can’t give up believing they are completely right and their opponent is completely wrong. Countries go to war rather than trying a new way of resolving their disputes.

The irony is that often those who regard themselves as open minded are in fact the most closed minded. They are closed minded about admitting they are closed minded.

Keats said, “Truth is beauty, beauty truth...and that is all ye need to know.” But most people say, “My way of thinking is truth and my way of thinking is beauty, and that is all I want to know.”

Anger Management in the Metropolis

Life in the city is full of adventure, excitement—and rudeness. Unfortunately, crowding can bring out the worst in people and animals.

In a famous experiment, rats were put in a crowded cage to see what would happen. The rats in this cage were so crowded together that they were literally standing whisker to whisker. After spending a long time in this environment, the rats started going nuts. They were fighting and killing each other. Some practiced cannibalism. Males and females didn’t want to mate and when females did get pregnant they often abandoned or abused their children.

In the modern metropolis, as well as in other places around the world, people have also been known to behave in, well, somewhat impolite ways. All one has to do is read the daily news headlines to know what I’m talking about.

How can you live in a crowded, urban environment and avoid fighting, killing, or like the rats in the experiment, eating other people? Here are some suggestions for how to deal with life in the modern metropolis when things get too stressful.

Pretend you’re on Mars. While gallivanting around town, remain detached. One way of doing this is to imagine yourself looking at everyone as if you were peering down through a telescope from Mars. Pretty soon everybody looks like a bunch of ants. Why get overheated about tiny insects?

Get plenty of hugs. Surround yourself with caring people. Try to get at least one hug per day from your significant other, your Aunt Ethel, or a good friend. The more you feel the love, the less the stings and arrows of outrageous fortune will upset you. Also potentially troublesome people will see that rosy “I’m getting my quota of hugs” aura and will be less likely to target you.

Smile a lot. A psychologist once did an experiment in which he wired subjects up to measure their skin temperature and heart beat. When he asked the subjects to smile, he found that their skin temperature and heartbeat went down; when he directed them to frown, he found that their skin temperature and heartbeat went up. “Smile and the world smiles with you,” is the title of a song from the 1940s. There may be some truth to the song after all. Smiling may become a buffer that keeps negative people away.

Stick out your tongue. Humor can be a wonderful way to deal with the adversity of urban life. Let’s say you have a bully breathing down your neck at work, the kind of person who makes sure to point out your every mistake. “Oh, my God,” the bully says, “Did you hear what you just said? You just said ‘nauseous’ instead of ‘nauseated.’ Don’t you know the rules of grammar?” You stick out our tongue, cross your eyes, and laugh like a chimpanzee.

“You’re an idiot,” the bully says.

You continue to be an idiot until he leaves.

Child abuse is linked with adult ailments

Recent research has demonstrated a relationship between childhood abuse and a number of adult ailments, including arthritis, depression, cancer, and psychosis.

The research, published in journals in America, Australia, Canada and England, notes the following connections:

· Adults who experienced physical abuse as children have 56 per cent higher odds of osteoarthritis compared to those who have not been abused, according to a study by University of Toronto researchers published in Arthritis Care and Research.

· Childhood physical abuse is associated with elevated rates of cancer in adulthood, according to another study by University of Toronto researchers to be published in the journal, Cancer.

· People who were abused and neglected during childhood have a higher risk of major depression when they become young adults, according to a report in the January issue of the Archives of General Psychiatry, one of the JAMA/Archives journals. In addition, depressed men who were abused have ten times higher risk of suicide, according to an article in the British Journal of Social Work.

· Researchers at the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London have published new research in The British Journal of Psychiatry which indicates that women with severe mental illness are more likely to have been abused in childhood that the general population.

· Childhood sexual abuse significantly increases the risk of developing drug and alcohol issues, mental illness and marital strife in men and women, according to a study in American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

This research underscores the long-term devastation caused by childhood abuse and shows links between it and a growing number of adult diseases and disorders. And it calls attention to a problem—be it physical, emotional, or sexual abuse—that has been escalating over the past decade.

For years, families swept childhood under the rug and some researchers believed that it had only limited long-term effect. Indeed, some researchers stated that a child could grow out of it once he became an adult. This new research shatters this mythology once and for all.

Although recent researchers don’t offer an explanation for the link between abuse and a myriad of illnesses, one can conjecture that any kind of child abuse engenders low self-esteem, bad coping method, and a pessimistic outlook on life. These three factors alone would predispose victims of child abuse to a number of illnesses. In addition, bad hygiene and physical posture associated with child abuse victims could explain the many cases of arthritis later on.

This research goes counter to recent trends to seek primarily biological explanations for mental disturbances as well as for physical ailments. It clearly shows that environmental traumas continue to have at least a partial effect on the development of adult problems.

Maybe, just maybe, by focusing on the many long-term effects of childhood abuse, we may at last be able to come up with some preventative measure that will help us to diminish or even eliminate it from our culture. Wouldn’t that be nice?

Why does a mother beat her child to death?

A few weeks ago the mother of a 4-year-old Brooklyn boy was arrested along with her boyfriend for the savage slaying of her child. Myrna Chen Phang, 25, and her boyfriend, Steven Dadaille, 26, were charged with pummeling Jayden Lenescar with their fists and with a belt buckle during a two day spree of violence. When Phang finally called 911, after leaving the boy in the bathtub fighting for his life all that time, it was too late. He died on the way to the hospital.

The question everybody is asking is why? Why would a mother do this to her little boy?

The information about the case is sketchy and doesn’t provide concrete answers. Phang and Dadaille told an unnamed source, quoted in the Daily News, they were angry at the boy for touching himself. “They said they warned him not to touch himself and he went ahead and did it, so they threw him in the bathtub, threw cold water on him and began hitting him with the belt.” The source said Phang beat him first and then Dadaille took the belt away and began hitting the boy harder, complaining that Phang was being much too easy.

Rosa Adrien, a friend of Phang’s, said Phang spoke about spirits taking over her body. “She said something came over her, almost like a spirit. She said she didn’t know why she let it happen.” Adrien blamed Dadaille, noting that he was “a voodoo devotee.” Phang was recently separated from her husband, Mackenzy Lenescar, and had taken an order or protection out on him. Apparently the separation was not amicable.

From these sparse facts we can speculate on what might have caused Phang to lose her temper and beat her son to death.

First, there was the recent separation, accompanied by the order of protection. If a woman takes out an order of protection it is usually because she is frightened of violence against her. Sometimes she is also angry with the spouse. In such cases, the fear and anger get displaced onto their son. The boy becomes a symbol of the hated spouse and a reminder of him.

In addition, her present boyfriend, Dadaille, was reputedly a “devotee of voodoo.” While this is only second-hand information, we do know from several sources that he complained that Phang was too soft on the boy. Perhaps he had his own anger that got taken out on the boy. And his anger would have infected her anger.

This would explain a loss of temper. However, when we consider that Phang told her friend Adrien that “something came over her, like a spirit,” we may conclude that the rage that took hold of her was all out of proportion to the present situation. What this brings to mind is “transference.” In psychoanalysis, transference refers to a process in which repressed feelings (rage) toward a primary figure (a father) suddenly break to the surface in a present situation and get directed at that situation. Was Phang herself abused as a child? Research shows that abused children become abusive parents.

We can never know for sure what happened in that small apartment in Brooklyn, but we can know that it should never have happened, and we should never stop looking for ways it could have been prevented.

Has religious freedom gone too far?

Religious freedom began during the Protestant Reformation, which is said to have started with Martin Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses in 1517. At its inception, it was a protest against the excesses of the Catholic Church, which was intolerant of nonbelievers. Indeed, at certain times the Catholic Church beheaded those it deemed “heathens.”

Today religious history seems to have gone full cycle. Around the world various religions are again preaching intolerance as well as distrust and often hatred for all those who are not of the their faith. At times religious intolerance has led to killings and war, as is the case with those Muslim sects that advocate extermination of all “infidels” (which includes Muslims and non-Muslims who deviate from their radical Muslim doctrine.)

Nor is religious intolerance only found in other parts of the world. It can be seen right here in America. Scattered around the USA are religious communities (sometimes affiliated with a major religion) that exclude others and indoctrinate their young with the notion that their religious views and theirs alone are the correct ones, while at the same time filling them with distrust of all those outside their religion.

The Hassidic Jews of Brooklyn, New York—according to the 2007 documentary, A Life Apart—consider themselves superior to all other Jews, not to mention non-Jews. They believe their brand of Judaism is the elite brand, and they socialize only with other Hassidic Jews while eschewing any contact with mainstream America. Some perceive them as prejudiced against all those outside their sect.

Ironically, religions that practice exclusivity and intolerance, as certain Muslim and Jewish sects apparently do, often accuse other groups of being prejudiced against them. Often people are afraid to speak out against religious excess out of a fear of being called a name such as “religious bigot.”

Religion, when practiced in a constructive way, can be very beneficial to its followers. When its core beliefs are focused on love, peace, and respect for all human beings, it fosters harmony and mental health. However, when its focus is on exclusivity, intolerance, and disguised or not-so-disguised hate, it can be quite unhealthy.

Religious intolerance and conflict can have a ripple effect. Thus, it prods the mindset of all people, causing widespread anxiety and stress. When Mama and Daddy fight, the children suffer.

How far should religious freedom go? Should religions have the freedom to teach distrust of anyone who is not of their religion? Should they have the freedom to indoctrinate followers with the notion that their religion is superior to other religions and they therefore deserve special treatment? Should they have the right to teach their members that they are victims of prejudice and therefore they have the right to attack those they perceive as discriminating against them? Should they have the right to preach hatred of other religions and demand death to those outside their religions?

Throughout history religions have started with good intentions, then become powerful gotten out of hand. Will that cycle ever stop?

End-of-Life Counseling is here.

A new hybrid form of counseling called “End-of-Life Counseling” has been developed in recent years to help the elderly deal with death. The topic of “End-of-Life Counseling” has also been linked with President Obama’s health insurance reform; one of the provisions of the current bill includes paying a nurse to talk to the elderly patient about living wills, hospices, estate planning, and dealing with death.

Conservatives are critical of this part of the bill and refer to end-of-life counseling as “death panels.”

In a new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, trained nurses did the end-of-life counseling, mostly by phone, with patients and family caregivers using a model based on national guidelines. All the patients in the study had been diagnosed with terminal cancer. Half were assigned to receive usual care. The other had received usual care plus counseling about managing symptoms, communicating with health care providers and finding hospice care.

Patients in the study also attended 90-minute group meetings with a doctor and nurse to discuss problems related to their imminent death. Patients who got the counseling scored higher on quality of life and mood measures than patients who got no counseling. The patients who got the counseling also lived longer, by more than five months on average.

Actually death counseling has been around for some time as one of the forms of psychotherapy available to seniors. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross pointed to the need for this kind of counseling in her seminal book, On Death and Dying. In that book she observed a group of terminally ill patients in a hospital and noted that they went through stages of dealing with death and dying.

Their first reaction to being told they had cancer was denial. (“Those can’t be my x-rays!) Their second reaction was anger. (“Why did it have to be me?) Their third reaction was bargaining. (“God, if you’ll let me get well, I’ll give all my money to the church.”) The fourth reaction was depression. (“Of course, everything bad happens to me.”) And finally there was acceptance. (“Death is a normal part of life, accept it.”)

An end-of-life counselor can help people go through these stages as well as dealing with other end-of-life issues. People tend to get stuck in one of these stages—for example, the anger stage. They are angry at themselves, angry at their loved ones, angry at nurses, and angry at doctors. They feel everybody else is smug and gleeful because they get to live. They want to assail everybody and make them share their misery.

Death is the ultimate obstacle and the final stressor with which one has to cope. End-of-life counseling can’t make it go away. But it can get death to wipe the smirk off its face and be more sympathetic to this great human dilemma.

The changing definition of mental health

“She’s a strong woman. She knows what she wants and she goes after it. She doesn’t take crap from anybody.” This was how a young female patient described a friend.

“And that’s what you consider a mentally healthy person?” I asked.

“Of course. Don’t you?”

“Not necessarily. A person who doesn’t take crap from anybody might be a defensive person.”

This woman assumed that her theory about what constitutes mental health was the one and only theory. In fact theories about mental health differ from society to society, and have changed from one historical period to the next. As fashions change from time to time, so do the characteristics that are valued.

During the later stages of the Roman Empire, mental health was seen as being open-minded to any and all forms of sexuality, from beastiality to incest. Those who did not subscribe to this “civilized” open-mindedness were considered old-fashioned and, of course, not well adjusted mentally.

During the Holy Roman Empire, mental health was linked to one’s devotion to God, the Father, and the Holy Ghost. Those who were not believers were “heathens” and were seen as mentally disturbed and possessed by the devil.

During the communist revolution in Russia, rich capitalists were seen a mentally ill while revolutionaries like Marx and Lenin viewed themselves as mentally healthy people who would restore sanity and equality to humanity.

In Nazi Germany, the Nazis regarded themselves as mentally healthy people who wanted to return their beloved Germany back to a state of health; this meant ridding Germany of the mentally ill people (the Jews, etc.) who had brought Germany down.

In our own era we have many standards of mental health from the mainstream to the extreme. Those who practice a fundamentalist religion believe that devout practice of their religious rituals constitutes mental health, and they consider all who don’t practice these rituals as unhealthy. Those who subscribe to today’s liberal ideology equate mental health with fighting for liberal causes and mental illness with opposing liberal causes. Those who subscribe to conservative ideas equate mental health with fighting for conservative causes and mental illness with opposing conservative causes.

There is one standard of mental health that has been around for more than two thousand years. It is the standard associated with certain aspects of Eastern and Western philosophies. One thinks of Buddhism, Zen Buddhism and Taoism. And one thinks also of Socrates, Plato and Sigmund Freud.

This standard of mental health focuses not on having the right belief or the right cause, not on being morally superior or defeating those who are inferior. Rather it concentrates on self-knowledge, on being in tune with one’s feelings and in harmony with others and the world. It concentrates on a life focused on service to others, rather than on gratifying the self.

This standard of mental health, of course, has never appealed to the great majority. Because it’s only reward is inner peace. Who cares about that?