The Missing Ingredient in Weight Loss

December 1, 2008 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

No wonder most people struggle with losing weight and keeping it off. No one ever taught them how. It’s not just a matter of willpower and a healthy eating plan. To be successful, you have to learn a set of cognitive (thinking) and behavioral skills, that, I predict, you’ve never learned, much less mastered.  For example, I would bet that you don’t know the precise steps to:   motivate yourself every day get yourself to use good eating habits consistently, even when you don’t want to cope with hunger, craving, and the desire to eat get back on track immediately when you make a mistake deal with feelings of unfairness, deprivation, discouragement, and disappointment handle restaurant and special event meals deal with people who push you to eat food you’re not supposed to.   I’ll cover these skills and more in this blog. To reinforce these skills and learn more, you can read The Beck Diet Solution book and workbook and The Complete Beck Diet for Life . I want you to know it’s not your fault that you’ve struggled. You just didn’t know how!             © 2008 Psychology Today. This RSS Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact blogs@psychologytoday.com so we can take legal action immediately.

Read the original post:
The Missing Ingredient in Weight Loss

Media Interviews on Voting Poll Addiction and Withdrawal – Part 2 of 2.

November 29, 2008 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

  The 2008  presidential election is certainly one for the books. But it is not one where when it was over it was over. It wasn’t one where, at the end, win or lose, people went home, celebrated (or mourned) a little or a lot and then went on with their lives. Even if they wanted to do just that, there was too much militating against an either "Martha, hand me the cyanide," or the alternative, "job well done, see ya" trajectory. People are writing about poll fatigue or election fatigue or Obama or Clinton fatigues. But it’s premature. The possiblity for withdrawal and "what the hell do I do now?" remonstrations simply have to wait. The beat goes on. Here are some reasons why:  1. Unresolved house and senatorial elections demanded and continue to demand more volunteer work and more cash contributions to help in the recounts in Minnesota and a run-off election in Georgia, all with the hoped for outcome by Democrats for Obama to have a filabuster-proof majority of 60 Democrats in the Senate. The House is already a safe haven for Obama, even if you factor in the conservative or Blue Dog Democrats. 2. The recently resolved Sen. Ted Stevens vs. Mark Begich race in Alaska which, resolved in Begich’s favor, makes the 60-vote majority even more tantilizingly reachable and worthy of further support of time and money. 3. The commitment to keep the activist, volunteerist, contributonal strategies running to help President-Elect Obama work on and push through his promises and policies once in office, including programs akin to Kennedy’s Peace Corps or the later Volunteers in Servie to America (VISTA) programs. And, with the current economic meltdown, the possibility of Obama instituting FDR-type WPA programs to get Americans back to work on infrastructural problems. Obama and his people knew that it was no mean feat to get the young people again enthusiastically involved in national politics and causes and that the lamp of activism must be kept lit. 4. Those who actively worked on the Obama campaign were queried, filled out questionnaires about their "intentions" for the future and their ideas about how the campaign worked, what they would do differently and the extent to which they want to continue working for Obama to advance progressive "change" programs he touted during the campaign. In other words, Obama is offering a never-ending campaign, if not a New Deal than at least a Change Deal. 5. This was an historical election for all the obvious and well-analyzed reasons having to do with race, gender, war, economics and some social, wedge issues concerning gays and marriage. But it was an historical election pre-eminently because there is something felt historical about the election. There was and is the belief that Obama can indeed change the direction of this country, recoup its "special" image in the world, a nation, a people, a set of leaders one can look toward rather than turn away from. This has been a long time in coming and many people don’t want to let that "feeling" go so quickly just because the election is completed. And Obama has asked them to stay in touch and hold him to his promises. 6. The power of Obama has been enhanced by the retiring reticence, lame-duckness of George Bush and company. On a surprise yet most welcome note, the Bush administration has provided Obama with a transitional power, visibility and pulpitude practically unprecedented for a President-Elect in American politics. With this bully pulpit and perception of real rather than potential power, foreign dignitaries know the sitting president has psychologically and emotionally left the building. Most substantive foreign and domestic attention and speculation has turned to Obama. In many ways, Obama is President-Elect in name only, as George Bush is now President in name only. 7. The TV pundits and the op ed pages of the major national newspapers are filled with commentary about who will be pulling levers of power in an Obama D.C. Who will Obama appoint to cabinet positions, to transition team positions, and to various administratively sensitive positions such as Press Secretary, White House Counsel and Chief of Staff? Coverage of these Administration change-of-power goings-on fill up the 24 hour cable news shows and keep Obama in the public eye while his cool, confidant demeanor and words are contributing to the emerging legend of Barack Obama in his own time. 8. Polls are still chugging along, only this time about dimensions of The Obama Effect: How confident do you feel about his solving the current and expanding economic crisis? The military problems? Unemployment? National Security? Cabinet appointments? Obama’s ability to walk on water?So, if you yearn for polls, if you yearn for excitement and speculation and punditry, like the media offered for two years; if you yearned for another episode in the never-ending Clinton Travelling "enigma in a conundrum show," one that’s keeping the election spirit alive, along with, of course, the miasmic rats nest, Wall Street-Detroit, it’s all here. And hey, MSNBC still calls itself "the station for politics. That must mean something, right? Yes, events intervene and momentarily drive American politics off the front page. The marathon crisis and tragedy that is Mumbai has consumed media news attention. And certainly Sarah Palin still shows the power to pull the camera away from both presidents when she opens her mouth to save a turkey but somehow misses the point and reveals her astounding insensitivity to the suffering of all things animal. But she still has a constituency; she is still is someone to watch. And comedians adore her. The political beat goes on. The Obama train, hated, hopeful, or adored, is still racing across the multi-media landscape, taking up all the political oxygen in cyberspace. Even the columns and photos of Bush-in-Decline add to the Obama, post-election after-show. So, to paraphrase the legendary Yogi Berra-Dan Cook phrase as it might apply to this election season: it ain’t over and the fat lady hasn’t sung. Election fatigue and withdrawal? Poll fatigue and withdrawal? Nowhere that I can see. Final note : For the true political addicts, the ones who jump from one issue to another, one candidate to another, one juice machine to another, they’re another story. By this writing, they will have already found another issue to shoot up, another cause in which to immerse themselves, to find the meaning and the tang that "civilian" life simply can’t deliver. They’re like the unnamed war photographers who scour the world for action. Idealistic and noble causes are not their life blood. For them, it’s the fight that counts, not who is fighting.  It’s the process, not the outcome. For them and for political junkies, Obama is already yesterday. For the rest of us, Obama is today and tomorrow.       © 2008 Psychology Today. This RSS Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact blogs@psychologytoday.com so we can take legal action immediately.

See original here: 
Media Interviews on Voting Poll Addiction and Withdrawal – Part 2 of 2.

Obama’s Ancient Leadership Style

November 21, 2008 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

In an earlier post , we wrote a bit about the differences between modern politics and the approach taken by our pre-agricultural ancestors. When thinking about these issues (modern vs. pre-ag), it’s important to understand that while our experience of the modern is (obviously) more immediate, the experience of those who lived in that long dawn before agriculture was far more lasting, and thus is more likely to find reflection in our deepest patterns of thought and feeling. If we agree that our species, modern Homo sapiens came into being around 200,000 years ago, and the earliest evidence of agriculture is from around 10,000 years ago, our species has spent 95% of our time on this planet living as hunter-gatherers. If you add in all the generations of pre-modern humans, the numbers go even higher. So, while the experiences of a hunter-gatherer no doubt seem remote to you, understand that you carry the accumulated effects of those experiences in the deepest recesses of your mind, body, and spirit. In our earlier post, we quoted an anthropologist who had lived with and studied the !Kung San people of the Kalahari desert, in Africa. He’s talking about the qualifications of a leader: "None is arrogant, overbearing, boastful, or aloof. In !Kung terms these traits absolutely disqualify a person as a leader and may engender even stronger forms of ostracism. Another trait emphatically not found among traditional camp leaders is a desire for wealth or acquisitiveness. Their accumulation of material goods is never more, and is often much less, than the average accumulation of the other households in their camp." When you look at leadership among h/g societies, what you find is that nobody can "sieze power." How can you control people who each have free access to everything they need? Food, water, shelter, companionship — all are there for the taking in h/g existence. The result of this is that coercive power — a form of power so ubiquitous in modern societies that we often forget it is merely one type of power — is impractical. Nobody becomes a leader because they demand the position; someone becomes a leader when the others decide that he or she is someone they want to follow. In these societies, leadership is based on a bond of trust, humility, and sincerity — not to mention the intellectual superiority to make wise decisions. Watching the Obamas being interviewed on 60 Minutes the other night, we had the unmistakable sensation that we were in the presence of real people. Not made-for-TV political products, but honest, sincere, open, loving people. If you’ve spent time analyzing marriages at all, you see immediately that these two people love and respect each other deeply. It’s not an act. Look at how much pleasure they take in their shared history, laughing about the old car he drove when they first met, or the dismal apartment he had, full of last night’s pizza and empty beer bottles. Notice the respectful-but-unimpressed immediacy with which Michelle laughingly challenges Barack when he says he washes dishes ("Like when?") — too quick to be faked, too organic to be coached in or out of their presentation of self. I (CPR) grew up in a culture poisoned by assassinated and persecuted heroes, senseless slaughter in Vietnam, the lies of Watergate, the polyester idiocy of disco. It was a culture that ridiculed Jimmy Carter for wearing a sweater and daring to suggest that America should rethink our approach to energy consumption and maybe adopt the metric system while we’re at it. Well, we taught that stupid peanut farmer (with a PhD in nuclear physics, but still…) a lesson by electing a real hero in a landslide. Our hero told us that we didn’t have to change. We’re America! Let the world change. But the real hero turned out to be a fake cowboy who was nothing but a front man for a corporate/political machine that had finally consummated the marriage of politics and marketing. The powers behind Reagan  understood that at least 51% of the American people would buy even the emptiest, ugliest crap if you had the right spokesman and the right pitch. So they had their avuncular "cowboy" out there selling trickle-down economics , Star Wars defense systems, tax cuts and budget deficits, secret arms sales to declared enemies (Iran), and shameless, illegal war against peasants who dared to overthrow a dictator and try to govern themselves (Nicaragua). As long as the fake cowboy kept chuckling and clearing brush, it kept working. It worked so well, in fact, that they did it all over again with GWB. But Fake Cowboy 2.0 and his controllers have been such an unmitigated disaster that even that 51% who stay up late at night ordering commemorative coins and sending money to Nigerian princes aren’t fooled any more. But they’ll keep trying. Sarah Palin: Fake Cowgirl 1.0. The point (you’ve gotta be wondering by now) is this: Obama was elected not because of clever marketing and web-based fund raising (though these were certainly crucial), but because he embodies the most basic, ancient requirements of a true leader. He inspires admiration, trust, and the desire to be led by him. He’s clearly a superior human being without a superior attitude. He’s the kind of guy who could outrun you by far but slows down so he won’t make you look bad (ask Joe Lieberman). I admit it. I’m 46 years old and Barack Obama is the first American leader I’ve seen who makes me want to follow. © 2008 Psychology Today. This RSS Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact blogs@psychologytoday.com so we can take legal action immediately.

Original post:
Obama’s Ancient Leadership Style

New and Exciting in PLoS Biology and PLoS Medicine [A Blog Around The Clock]

November 18, 2008 in Blogs, Developing Intelligence by ScienceBlog

Specialization Does Not Predict Individual Efficiency in an Ant : Social insects, including ants, bees, and termites, may make up 75% of the world’s insect biomass. This success is often attributed to their complex colony organization. Each individual is thought to specialize in a particular task and thus become an “expert” for this task. Researchers have long assumed that the ecological success of social insects derives from division of labor, just as the increase in productivity achieved in human societies; however, this assumption has not been thoroughly tested. Here, I have measured task performance of specialized and unspecialized ants. In the ant species studied here, it turns out that specialists are no better at their jobs than generalists, and sometimes even perform worse. In addition, most of the work in the colony is not performed by the most efficient workers. So the old adage “The Jack of all trades is a master of none” does not seem to apply to these ants, suggesting that we may have to revise our understanding of the benefits of colony organization. A Novel Gene Family Controls Species-Specific Morphological Traits in Hydra : Closely related animal species share most of their genes, and only minor morphological differences allow us to tell them apart. The genetic basis for these differences may involve minor changes in the spatial and temporal activity of transcription factors–”regulator” genes–which are surprisingly conserved throughout the animal kingdom. However, every group of animals also has a small proportion of genes that are extremely variable among closely related species or even unique. Such genes are referred to as “novel,” “orphan,” or “taxonomically restricted.” Their functions and origins are often obscure. We have found that a family of novel genes is responsible for morphological differences between two closely related species of fresh water polyps called Hydra. A secreted protein encoded by a novel gene regulates the way in which tentacles develop. Our data indicate that novel genes may play a role in the creation of novel morphological features, thus representing one way how evolution works at the genus level. Appearance of novel genes may reflect evolutionary processes that allow animals to adapt in the best way to changing environmental conditions and new habitats. The Making of a Compound Inflorescence in Tomato and Related Nightshades : Among the most distinguishing features of plants are the flower-bearing shoots, called inflorescences. Despite a solid understanding of flower development, the molecular mechanisms that control inflorescence architecture remain obscure. We have explored this question in tomato, where mutations in two genes, ANANTHA (AN) and COMPOUND INFLORESCENCE (S), transform the well-known tomato “vine” into a highly branched structure with hundreds of flowers. We find that AN encodes an F-box protein ortholog of a gene called UNUSUAL FLORAL ORGANS that controls the identity of floral organs (petals, sepals, and so on), whereas S encodes a transcription factor related to a gene called WUSCHEL HOMEOBOX 9 that is involved in patterning the embryo within the plant seed. (F-box proteins are known for marking other proteins for degradation, but they can also function in hormone regulation and transcriptional activation) Interestingly, these genes have little or no effect on branching in inflorescences that grow continuously (so-called “indeterminate” shoots), as in Arabidopsis. However, we find that transient sequential expression of S followed by AN promotes branch termination and flower formation in plants where meristem growth ends with inflorescence and flower production (“determinate” shoots). We show that mutant alleles of s dramatically increase branch and flower number and have probably been selected for by breeders during modern cultivation. Moreover, the single-flower inflorescence of pepper (a species related to tomato, within the same Solanaceae family) can be converted to a compound inflorescence upon mutating its AN ortholog. Our results suggest a new developmental mechanism whereby inflorescence elaboration can be controlled through temporal regulation of floral fate. The Chilling Effect: How Do Researchers React to Controversy? : Can political controversy have a “chilling effect” on the production of new science? This is a timely concern, given how often American politicians are accused of undermining science for political purposes. Yet little is known about how scientists react to these kinds of controversies. Drawing on interview (n = 30) and survey data (n = 82), this study examines the reactions of scientists whose National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded grants were implicated in a highly publicized political controversy. Critics charged that these grants were “a waste of taxpayer money.” The NIH defended each grant and no funding was rescinded. Nevertheless, this study finds that many of the scientists whose grants were criticized now engage in self-censorship. About half of the sample said that they now remove potentially controversial words from their grant and a quarter reported eliminating entire topics from their research agendas. Four researchers reportedly chose to move into more secure positions entirely, either outside academia or in jobs that guaranteed salaries. About 10% of the group reported that this controversy strengthened their commitment to complete their research and disseminate it widely. These findings provide evidence that political controversies can shape what scientists choose to study. Debates about the politics of science usually focus on the direct suppression, distortion, and manipulation of scientific results. This study suggests that scholars must also examine how scientists may self-censor in response to political events. Read the comments on this post…

View post: 
New and Exciting in PLoS Biology and PLoS Medicine [A Blog Around The Clock]

Baby Quantization Update [Uncertain Principles]

November 18, 2008 in Blogs, Developing Intelligence by ScienceBlog

In this post we present an update to our earlier measurement of the Baby Feeding Correlation Function: The figure above shows a histogram of the interval between feedings for SteelyKid in the 14 weeks since birth. Error bars represent 1-σ statistical uncertainties. As you can see, we have added a great deal of data since we last posted. The correlation function clearly shows a large peak between 3 and 4 hours, dropping off rapidly to zero for longer feeding times. The zero value for feedings within half an hour clearly demonstrates anti-bunching, indicating that baby feedings are quantized events. We continue to await the development of ab initio theoretical calculations of the distribution with sufficient precision to compare to our data. Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…

See the original post here: 
Baby Quantization Update [Uncertain Principles]

Creativity and Hope

November 6, 2008 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

What’s at the core of art, music, dance, drama, writing, and play as healing arts? It’s simple — hope. Like many of my creative friends in the worlds of art and psychology, I feel like I can finally exhale now that the Presidential election is over. Like many, I have had repeated moments of surging emotion. But most of all, I suddenly feel free. And when I feel free, I know an extraordinary spell of creativity is coming on. Scott Barry Kaufman’s recent post on creativity put into perspective what I have been feeling for the past couple of days. Like Kaufman, I look forward to creative times ahead as both an artist and therapist. Whether that’s due to my liberal philosophy or some other personality trait, I cannot say. But I can say the outcome of the election brings not only a sense of freedom and imagination, but also resonates what is at the core of creativity as a healing art: Hope. Creativity as a healing force is more about hope than anything else. When I pull out my drawing journal or prep a canvas to paint, it about a dream of something that can be, the relentless hope that resides in my own creative process. As a therapist, when I sit beside a military veteran, an abused child, or a family who has suffered loss, it’s hope I see in their creativity and in their journeys to reparation and recovery. The easel, the music room, the poetry journal, and dance studio all have one ecology in common. They are places of hope both in what is created within them and environments for transformation, renewal, and ultimately, redemption. As I continue to dream my dream of the arts as healing agents for this world so overwhelmed with pain and problems, I realize those wishes are a very small part of so many different dreams that have possibility in this defining moment. At least on this one day in time, there is a creative force that has captured a collective imagination. Change is gonna come. And if only within me, that is good enough. Best of all, I have a whole lot of hope. © 2008 Cathy Malchiodi http://www.cathymalchiodi.com

Go here to read the rest:
Creativity and Hope

Beginner’s Mind

November 5, 2008 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

Psychology Today initially entitled my blog "Beginner’s Mind." What does that title mean? Did Psych Today mean that at that time, I was a beginning blogger for them, so don’t expect too much? You know – set a low bar and then I’ll look better. That could be one meaning, but there’s a better one. I didn’t come up with the phrase "Beginner’s Mind;" nor did Psych Today. It’s an old Zen term made popular by Shunryu Suzuki. When we experience something for the first time, we enjoy the novelty. See a great movie for the first time and it almost seems worth the nine-dollar movie ticket and the dollar-a-kernel popcorn. See the movie ten times and you’d pay 90 bucks not to have to see it for the eleventh time. Why is that so? What keeps us from enjoying something as much the tenth time as we did the first? The answer lies in the running commentary in our minds. For instance, most of the time we don’t simply taste a hamburger. As you eat your food, you might have thoughts comparing the food to other food ("It’s not as good as the hamburger I had last week."), or you might think about something besides the food ("Work’s been so busy lately."). There’s certainly nothing wrong with thoughts. Without your thoughts, you wouldn’t be able to use your computer, do your job, or understand what you are reading. However, the non-stop commentary keeps you from fully enjoying your life. Continuing our example, when people eat, they seldom just experience the taste, texture, and aroma of the food. In summary, you likely spend much more time thinking about food than tasting it. Even if you ate the best cookie in the world, you might only taste the first bite. After that it’s: "That was great… I should get more of these cookies… but then again, it will ruin my diet… I wonder how many calories per cookie." Before you know it, the bag is empty and you only really enjoyed the first bite of the first cookie. When we have a beginner’s mind we enjoy the tenth bite of the cookie just as much as the first. We appreciate walking barefoot on a grassy lawn with the exuberance of a young child, enjoying each step. Another word for "beginner’s mind" is "mindfulness." If you’ve read much psychology lately, you’ve probably run across the term mindfulness. In a way, it’s the ultimate in psychology retro fashion. You know, for a while Freud was so in, then it was Jung, then Gestalt was in style… and now, psychology is going back to a concept thousands of years old! Somehow I think this trend is a keeper. Mindfulness is non-judgmentally paying attention to your current experience. In addition to the quality of enjoying an experience with the curiosity and interest of a beginner, there is also an affectionate quality of mindfulness. There is the sense of welcoming all emotions, thoughts, and physical sensations. We aren’t welcoming them to stay for all eternity, but just for this moment. By doing so, we don’t get depressed about being depressed or stressed about being stressed. In addition to beginner’s mind, other descriptive terms and metaphors can help us understand mindfulness a little better. Since the experience of mindfulness is hard to put into words, it can be helpful to have other ways of talking about it. See if any of these descriptions speak to you: · Non-clinging and non-grasping. That is, enjoying life as it comes without always trying to have events be a little (or a lot) different. · Resting in awareness. As one learns to be mindful he may learn to non-judgmentally focus on various aspects of experience including sound, breath, and physical sensation. Eventually, one can develop the skill of focusing on and resting awareness itself. When doing so, even in the midst of chaos, there can be a sense of ease. · Metaphors. Some have used the metaphor of a body of water such as a lake. Typically people experience life as if they were on the surface of a lake, being buffeted by the winds, waves, and storms of their emotions, physical sensations, and thoughts. When one learns to rest in awareness, there is an identification not just with the commotion on the surface, but also with the depth of the lake which is undisturbed by winds and weather. · Some people view mindfulness in terms of their experience with God. They might increase their ability to be mindful by thanking God for whatever is in the present moment, and thereby deepen their appreciation of what is in front of them. Others increase mindfulness by seeing God in all things (and people). In this way they increase their sense of awe. · Love. I’m not talking about obsessive clingy infatuation sometimes described as love. I am talking about the deep feeling of looking into another’s eyes with unconditional acceptance. · Sense of being one with all. Mindfulness has been described as a feeling of no longer being separate from the rest of life. Just like describing the feeling of balancing on a bicycle, mindfulness can be hard to describe. One or more than one of these descriptions may currently ring true for you. If none of them speak to you, be patient. Each time you let go of the thoughts of how life should be and enjoy it just as it is, you strengthen important connections in your brain. Each time you look at this moment with curiosity and interest you also build those vital brain connections. Ultimately, you can increase mindfulness the same way you get to Carnegie Hall: "Practice, practice, practice…" Practice both in the midst of meditation and also in the midst of life! More hints about meeting the challenges of living in the present . By the way, my blog title was later changed to Stress Remedy giving me the opportunity to blog about all aspects of stress reduction. It also reminds people about my website www.stressremedy.com which includes links to find mindfulness retreats, classes, and my book and CD set  Take the Stress Out of Your Life .  

More here: 
Beginner’s Mind

Post Election Stress Disorder

November 4, 2008 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

National elections are tough times for those of a bi-partisan nature, not to mention a blogger who comments on the negative effects of emotional pollution. I’d like to think that we are the silent majority, those of us who long for civility and respect in the discourse of decent people presenting their vision and plans for the nation. After all, poles say that the public is fed up with negative campaigning with its misleading and often downright false advertising. We’re appalled at the costs of this election cycle, which exceeds that of the Revolutionary War and the duration that nearly doubles our participation in World War I. This election has been so disappointing because it held out promise to be better. Both candidates really seemed above personal and negative attacks. The use of the military word, "campaign," to describe political contests is apt; the first casualty in war and politics is truth. The maelstrom of the election has been personal for me, as my dearest friends and closest relatives are at the extreme – though not radical or reactionary – ends of the political spectrum. My inbox is bombarded by negative points about the policies and characters of both candidates and their running mates. Passionate arguments that would not, to be kind, pass peer review on their merits are put forth by good and bright people. I understand that certainty is an emotional, not an intellectual state that requires limiting the amount of information considered and that political campaigns are designed to exploit bias rather than reveal it. Still, I wonder how they can be so certain about such enormously complex problems. But then I am probably confusing personal tastes and biases with an objective and informed analysis of problems. Political passions are closer to, "I don’t know anything about art, but I know what I don’t like." And I am no better for trusting those who are the most certain the least. Part of my post election stress disorder may be due to the fact that I’m vastly overworked. I specialize in couples living in resentment, anger, or emotional abuse. Two conditions greatly increase demand for my services: economic crises and national elections. When they occur together, it’s like a perfect storm of family contention. I have written previously in this blog about how so many people download and recycle the negativity in their environment and ultimately take it out on the closest people to them. A web of emotions connects us all, for better or worse. I long for a politician to realize that to make the country stronger, we must love the people closest to us, respect and tolerate the differences of everyone, and let compassion spread through the web of emotion that connects us all, for the better.

Continued here: 
Post Election Stress Disorder

We Come From You – Transsexual People and Politics

November 4, 2008 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

For most of my life, when I looked at the people passing by in my daily activities, on some subconcious level I felt like I was one of them. Beneath whatever surface tensions, we were all part of the human family, and aside from my transition I wasn’t terribly unlike most of them when it came to the basics. But even more so than a lifetime of almost numbingly commonplace rejection, the heartbreaking contempt toward transsexual people (as part of the GLBT community) exposed by the heightened politics around the 2008 Presidential election has left me feeling like I need to examine closely who and what I am a part of. For trans people, gender is forced into being a social, political and legal issue as a matter of simple survival. Almost one transsexual person is murdered in the US every month , which is an astounding number considering how few of us there are nationwide. We have been at the center of legal attacks from schoolteacher Dana Rivers to wife Christie Lee Littleton to Colorado’s recent and typical scare-tactic PSA against trans people being allowed to use public spaces such as the restroom by positioning it as "what if a MAN was in the restroom with your daughter?!" Look at my photo next to this blog entry. That is the face of someone who would be forced to use the men’s restroom by these people. Trust me, my interest in teenage girls extends only so far as they can accurately fill my order at the local hamburger drive-thru. Most recently, after watching national leaders represent their constituencies’ beliefs by seeking to restrict marriage with Constitutional amendments redefining it as "between one man and one woman" and using condescending terms such as "tolerance", I fear that next steps will inevitably involve imposing into the Constitution their definition of what exactly a man or a woman is. Should one’s gender be defined by reproductive ability? Then what about men and women born sterile? What about impotent older men and post-menopausal women? Does genitalia define gender? Then what are intersex people? Is it chromosomes? Then should we do a chromosomal assay on every newborn and adult, and do we claim to fully understand all aspects of the human genome anyway now? Very few opponents of non-hetero, non-gender normative people understand the science behind these questions, and many would eschew science in favor of religious interpretations anyway. In any case, it’s an unwinnable situation for us in their minds. We are "gross", scary and threatening. All their rationalizations against us fall into line behind these gut-level feelings. These beliefs, held by politcally powerful and wealthy people, directly influence my daily life and set a tone for the national zeitgeist that says trans people, as part of the GLBT community, are "less than", and worthy of "tolerance" at best. If I sent you an invitiation to my birthday pary which said, "Calpernia will tolerate your presence at her upcoming birthday celebration on February 20th, 2009", would you want to come? Why did I "choose" this "lifestyle" of being a gender rebel? All I can say is that one’s soul seems to be whatever it will be, and our only choice is how to express it in our lives. At very early ages, I began to discover differences that went beyond the average person’s. Many things I wanted to do would upset the adults and other children, who seemed to follow their own hearts’ desires with the loving hands of the community guiding them onward while they reprimanded and punished me. My eyes were drawn to things like the games that the girls played with each other on the monkey bars, sharing secrets while perched like birds in a tree. They talked and watched the boys, or a leader would direct the others in improvised routines of flips and twirls done in hypnotic unison. I wanted to hang upside down with them and shake my own curtain of silky hair that swept the ground. I wanted to hear the whispered secrets, and receive the frightened consideration of the boys who were happy to be separated but endlessly fascinated with the girls. I had never heard of transsexualism or homosexuality. I had never seen a drag queen or transsexual, never read "Heather Has Two Mommies", never encountered anything other than simple suburban Southern folk in a Christian home. Yet these needs were there, from the earliest ages. My only choice was whether to hide my true self, or cherish and express it. I discovered quickly that hiding it was my only option, as I was not welcomed by the girls, and while the boys had no desire to include the feminine child I was in their games, they rained down all the derision they could muster when I left them to flip and twirl on a lonely perch atop the parallel bars by myself. But I still felt like I was one of them all, a person among persons. Just not a popular one. If worse came to worst, we were all in this life together as human beings, I seemed to know without putting it into words. I would learn in the coming years that I was not considered "one of them" by the majority, to my great disadvantage. In my world, it is simply a fact that social and religious conservatives are horrified by people who transgress the gender boundaries that they have set up. This is backed up by a lifetime of personal experience. Never mind that current gender boundaries are mostly fabricated based on what is comfortable and familiar to the majority, and have little to do with anything "universal". "Well, my little Joe likes trucks and baseball, so all boys should!" Here in America, men don’t wear dresses, women do. Men have short hair, women have long hair. Boys wear blue, girls wear pink. Mostly meaningless, but crossing those lines has often stirred up fevered responses driven by terror from mostly conservative and religious citizens. Trust me, I’ve walked through a mall full of conservative Southern families as a fledgeling transsexual woman. I’ve seen the responses. There are certainly a few religious groups who welcome or at least "tolerate" gay, lesbian and transsexual people without subjecting them to "reparative therapy". I can’t think of any socially conservative groups who are welcoming, but in any case none of these small groups seem to be in a position to dictate public policy, legal precedent or social moires in the way that I see from the major religious and conservative groups. And by "dictate policy", I mean legislate me out of the fabric of society. A lifetime or two has passed since those childhood days, and now I am a battle-hardened and battle-weary veteran of the rejection that only grew more complex and urgent as those children grew into adults. Where they once excluded me, the feminine little boy, from their playground games, now they vote and litigate to exclude me, the transsexual woman, from their social institutions, workplaces, schools and hospitals. But looking beyond the immediate threat of debates on whether a transsexual woman is legally a "woman", and thus belongs within or outside of things like California’s upcoming anti-gay-marriage "Proposition 8" initiative , I look at what these questions mean about what these people would do with us, if they had the power to do so. Where would they have us go? How would they have us live? I won’t even go into the fact here that the biggest threat to heterosexual marriage and families is obviously a little something called "divorce", which rends up to half of all hetero families in two. What if the tens of millions of dollars they spent fighting the tiny threat of GLBT marriage had been spent fighting divorce? Keeping us out of the concepts of "family", marriage, the workplace, schools, health care and the very fabric of society is part of a larger mission of "othering" us as much as possible in the current legal framework. I wholly believe that people seeking to push us out of those spaces in society would ultimately only be happy if we didn’t exist at all, in any way. If we can’t work, study, take care of ourselves or be a part of families, what’s left?  What has become most distressing to me over the past few years is the attempt by religious and social conservatives to exclude trans people (as part of the GLBT umbrella) from the universal concept of "family". As if we came from something other than a family ourselves. A prime example of one of the groups that uses the word "family" to mean "not Calpernia Addams" is the online Journal of the American Family Association. They even put my picture on the cover of their July 2006 issue , as an example of "sexual radicals who hate Christianity". While "hate" is a rather strong word, considering my treatment by the institution, you can bet I don’t "love" them. They are one of countless conservative and politically active groups using the term "family" as something that doesn’t include GLBT people, and scaring members by holding up their children as assumed targets of our imagined nefarious schemings.  The word "family" has been appropriated by conservative religious people as a code that means "NOT gay, lesbian or transgendered". Where once the word meant "mom, dad, brother and sister" to me, now it means "NOT YOU!", which is a terrible shame. And a terrible way to position another human being’s place in this society. Because, you see, we are not the monstrous aliens from some other dimension who hunger for the souls of your children, as conservative media personalities would have you believe. We come from you . In recent years, some lesbian women have chosen to bear children through various means, and some gay men have adopted. Some few GLBT people have children from previous mixed gender relationships. But for the most part, historically the GLBT community has not made up a large segment of the reproducing population. And even when we do reproduce, our children only have the same tiny percentage chance of being GLBT as anyone else’s. Most likely, we’re making more of you , not more of us. For the most part, we do not reproduce ourselves. We are not born from space pods, or made from string and twigs by witches. You , the average heterosexual gender-normative couples, make us. We are made up out of your offspring, and your families. We come from you. Yes, "families", that word from which they work so hard to exclude us. Every time you, your relatives, your friends, have a baby, you are rolling the dice and a small number of times out of every so many babies, a child comes who will eventually be attracted to members of the same sex or who will not fit gender stereotypes. This is just a fact, played out throughout recorded history and across the world in every culture. Not only were we once children, just like the precious ones held up as shields by the terrified parishioners who fund scare-tactic television ads and websites encouraging you to push us out of the fabric of society. But some of those little angels who play among your own children right now in school, church and the neighborhood are young gay, lesbian and transgendered human beings just like I and my GLBT friends once were. Some of your own children are young gay, lesbian and transgendered human beings, just as some are young heterosexual and young gender normative humans. As most GLBT people will tell you, we always knew something was different. We weren’t hetero-normative and gender-normative kids who decided at age 21 to become gay or to transition. We may have learned to fake it, or tried to suppress it, but most who I’ve met always knew something was going on. We were gay, lesbian and transgendered children, just as others were straight and gender-normative kids. Yet, we had birthday cakes with big wax candles in the shape of the #1, just as other kids did. We watched cartoons and wanted to eat too much candy. We studied for algebra tests, attended or rejected the prom and had all the same human moments that you all had, albiet with an added layer of strife due to the rejection of our sexuality or gender identity by society. We are not "the other", we are not monsters. We come from you. It’s a very simple thing, but it’s one that bears mentioning to the many who would "otherize" and demonize us as monstrous threats to "their" proprietary ideas of family and children. And it’s something that I must remind myself, too, when I look out my window now at the people walking down the street. I struggle with bitter knee-jerk thoughts of "are you the one who votes against me, or apathetically doesn’t support me? Are you the one who rejected me, mocked me and insulted me from childhood all the way up to now? Are you the one who lackadaisically sits in judgment of whether or not the things most natural and comfortable to me are acceptable to you in a social, workplace, medical, legal or entertainment setting, while your most natural and comfortable urges often get a free pass by your own religions and social systems?" I then have to remind myself to hope that these strangers are not a cruel, unified, hypocritical majority of "others", but that they are imperfect human beings just like me, and that I do indeed come from them, so there is a possibility that soemday they will see me as one of them. That I am still part of the human family, and that there is still some thin hope that the hypocrisy and hate will end one day.

Original post:
We Come From You – Transsexual People and Politics

The Tact Game: Is there always a winning way to give critical feedback?

November 3, 2008 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

It’s commonly held that critical feedback never has to hurt so long as you deliver it tactfully. Tact transcends all resistance. There’s a nice way to say anything. I live by that belief and promote it to my students. I tell them to assume that there’s nothing they can’t say to anyone as long as they just come up with the right way to say it. I encourage them to work lifelong on their rhetorical skills, to build their vocabularies, to aspire to the ability to run turn aside any resistance to get their messages across. Make it like a video game racing against time before the listener’s ears close, and against all the objections listeners might raise. Practice speaking truth to power, but speak as an influencer and not as a martyr. Martyrs speak truth to power and pay the ultimate price. But one doesn’t have to pay that price. There’s always a way to influence the powerful, changing their minds or at least keeping them from killing or firing you. That’s a game worth playing. At the same time I find myself feeling annoyed when people tell me I’ve lost a round of that game. Here I’ve tried to be tactful and they tell me it wasn’t good enough. They didn’t like my feedback or the way I delivered it, and they assume it’s the latter. Half the time they’re right. My impulses do get the better of me, and I need to think more strategically. But half the time it feels like they’re exploiting a blanket rationale for dismissing unwelcome feedback. Since they feel hurt, they automatically assume it means I failed to find a sufficiently tactful approach, and they therefore shouldn’t have to consider the content of my feedback. Such a policy excuses recipients from ever having to take responsibility for their resistance to feedback. It’s tact gamesmanship–a tried-and-true recipe for defense. I appear therefore to have double standard. Here I promote the tact game. I say the customer is always right and even if he isn’t you’ll do better if you assume he is. But then when a customer rejects my feedback, declaring it insufficiently tactful, I don’t automatically buy that assessment. I play the game–but when told I lost a round, I doubt the referee. Maybe it’s just that, a double standard. I wouldn’t put it past me to hold double standards, and being better at dishing it out than taking it in is a common one. That double standard whereby you hold different standards for yourself than for others is not OK. It’s something to work on. And yet it’s not a double standard if one holds different standards, not for people but for roles: As feedback giver, be as ambitious as possible in your search for the tactful way to convey your message. Since you search more ambitiously if you assume there’s something to find, always assume that a perfect way to say what you want to say exists. You need only look for it. But as the receiver, make the opposite assumption. Assume that the person delivering the feedback did a reasonable job of presentation–and that if it bothers you, it may well be because the content is genuinely something to think about. We like to pretend we’re always open to useful feedback, but that openness is at best ambivalent openness. Think about it. You’re cruising along on second nature, intuition, habits, and best effort. You do what you can to be nice and you do what you can to maintain the self-esteem necessary to keep from second-guessing yourself. You maintain a bubble of serenity and self-respect. And someone just comes along and pops that bubble, sticks a hand in, and rubs your nose on feedback that you’re not doing as well as you think. In principle you may welcome feedback, but that doesn’t mean it’s fun. With that in mind, as a recipient, take it in dutifully. Ingest it, unpalatable though it may be. Then wait a while before digesting it and deciding what’s nutritious and what’s waste by-product. Next week I’ll survey strategies for giving feedback effectively–speaking truth to power without getting your head cut off. These strategies all have strengths and limitations. None is a perfect surefire recipe for winning the tact game and influencing people, but they all can boost your chances when selected on the right occasion.

Go here to read the rest:
The Tact Game: Is there always a winning way to give critical feedback?