Heads or Tales? The Psychology Hidden in Our Favorite Children’s Books
Children’s books are designed to teach children how to handle everyday situations such as handling frustration, taking responsibility, making choices, and having fun. In other words, they teach the skills we will employ throughout our adult lives. Heads or Tales will explore how these “simple” books incorporate psychological theories and can tell us a great deal about our underlying beliefs about human nature.
Join me for an hour-long online discussion via Zoom at 7PM on Tuesday, September 29th. We will read The Giving Tree by Shel Silverstein. If you’re not familiar with the book, you can take a look at it here: https://www.slideshare.net/wicaksana/the-giving-tree-3293089
The book will be our path to discussing real matters; the path to real matters will hopefully bring us all a little joy.
The fee is $5.00 for one; $10.00 for 2 or more, payable in advance via Venmo (@Diane-Urban-5)
Mindfulness is a “mental state achieved by focusing one’s awareness on the present moment, while calmly acknowledging and accepting one’s feelings, thoughts, and bodily sensations.” But who wants to focus on the present moment these days? Who is calm? Who can calmly acknowledge thoughts and feelings?
Mindfulness is a challenge in the best of times, but 2020 has brought the challenge to the Olympic level. This workshop is designed to explore the obstacles to mindfulness, how to clear the path to that goal, and, most importantly, it is designed to bring us all a little joy.
Join me for an hour long online discussion via Zoom at 7PM on Thursday, August 27th.
The fee is $5.00 for one; $10.00 for 2 or more, payable in advance via Venmo (@Diane-Urban-5)
Re-opening has caused us all a bit of anxiety. Different rules in different areas, different comfort levels for people not only in the same geographical area, but even for people sharing the same home. So, I thought it would be fun to use the lens of Freudian defense mechanisms to explore how we are controlling our anxiety.
I tend to use intellectualization: I find out the facts and reassure myself that if I follow the suggestions to stay healthy, then I will stay healthy. Some people use denial: they continue their daily routines as if nothing is different. Statements that indicate the use of denial include “I don’t know anyone who got sick”, “It’s just like the flu”, and “The whole thing is a world-wide hoax.” Some use identification: repeating words spoken by political leaders as the basis of their actions. Identification is evidenced by statements such as, “I don’t know why you are over-reacting like this,” or “wearing a mask is for cowards.” Some identify with the scientific community and cite statistics about spikes in cases and statistics about first versus second wave of the pandemic.
Others use repression: they actually hear the news and then forget everything they hear. The combination of repression and denial is what I see when I witness public figures still shaking hands, touching microphones, or not wearing a mask. Some use regression: yelling, fighting, throwing tantrums at the store and in their homes. Some use reaction formation: acting the opposite of how they really feel. I imagine many front line health workers are using that defense mechanism.
Sadly, some are using displacement, diverting their anger from the source to a different target (usually a weaker one). So, they are yelling at significant others, children, strangers because they want to yell at the virus and make it stay far away from themselves and those they care about.
Whatever mechanisms you are using to ease your anxiety, try to be kind to yourself and others. We need each other right now.
After reading an article entitled Listening to Killers (https://www.apa.org/monitor/2016/02/killers) by Rebecca Clay (Monitor on Psychology, Feb. 2016), a student wrote this reflection about addressing violent crime and the violence of racism. His words deepened my understanding – so much so that I wanted to share his insights with a wider audience.
A Reflection on Listening to Killers by James Liverman
The article discussed young people committing murder. It talked of their environment as a cause of their moral depravity, as well as parental abandonment. It didn’t specifically state this fact, but I believe a lot of those killers are Black and Brown people. The author says, “The general public tends to view murderers as absolutely evil persons or people so damaged; they can’t possibly live among us. But most killers are untreated traumatized children who are controlling the actions of the scary adults they have become.”
I believe that society is also the cause and the reason these young people kill.
They come from descendants that were held in captivity and forced to witness some of the most horrific punishment – punishment that you or I can’t even begin to imagine. Punishment only limited by the imagination of the slave owners trying to instill in a people the cost of running away or thinking of being a human being.
In addition, “breeding” occurred where the children or offspring were taken at birth and sold. The father went from one stall to the next to impregnate a female or “wench” as they were called. The family unit wasn’t allowed to exist by SOCIETY. Those parental bonds were taken away by the society of the time. Fast forward to today and it is called “parental abandonment.”
This thinking – the slavery, the punishment, the breeding – occurred less than one hundred and fifty years ago, and then, hundreds of thousands of uneducated people (people who weren’t allowed to be educated) were released in a land to fend for themselves: “The Emancipation Proclamation”.
So, the trauma happened, I believe when they were born in America’s society as Black and Brown people. The existing system or society was not designed for them. So, the systemic or institutional racism became a weapon of war against them, hence the warzones they were born into. Police departments around the country are more than able to stem the violence in all neighborhoods assigned to that precinct, one would imagine, so how are the ghettos or warzones, as the article states, allowed to fester?
I believe that the Black and Brown people inherited trauma; their aggression is normalized on television every night: kill or be killed. Their parents’ vocabulary, the same as any parents’ vocabulary of love and staying safe, may be less than a thousand words while society’s vocabulary is two-hundred thousand by their teen years. They never leave the “warzone”, so life has no value to them.
Dr. Garbarino’s work is amazing; he has dedicated his life to studying how America’s oppression can rear such seemingly dehumanized individuals. He relates this to their disappearing family upbringing. More importantly, he relates it to the experience of growing up in a warzone “with high community violence, gangs, chronic threats and stress.” This environment consists of living to be 21 and getting paid by vehicles other than a welfare system that’s built on the principle that this is their “right of passage”. Could he himself be suffering from “institutional racism”, though?
He then answers whether these murderers can be rehabilitated or cured for lack of a better word. After being incarcerated in “cages” for more than 10, 15, 20 years or so, they live in Rome and do as the Romans do. Some take advantage of the wisdom that comes from the older prisoners who have matured in a “cage”. What’s the parole board like in a society that’s the cause of your incarceration? Is it the systemic racism washed from that parole board that allows the victim’s family to spew their hatred for you, and use that as a determining factor in whether you are released or denied parole or release?
These are just my thoughts on the matter. I’m not a psychologist; however, I believe sentencing juveniles to life terms and changing the laws so that they could be sentenced that way is unconstitutional and criminal. If they were given the resources to become educated and teachable, a lot of people who are given time away from a “traumatic” or “unhealthy” background, would be capable of becoming a functioning member of American society.
While social distancing has provided us with numerous
reasons to be anxious, it’s also giving many of us much more time with our
family and friends. Whether we are
connecting with them via phone, text, or physically spending all day with them,
we are all looking for things to talk about (besides the elephant in the room,
that is). Many of us have blown the dust off our board
games, started puzzles, or reached in the corners of our play cabinets for arts
and crafts supplies. But, I have an
activity that only requires pen and paper and will not only prove to be fun,
but help us strengthen the connections we are so desperately missing.
I like to call this activity Memory Lane. I developed it some time ago to help my
students understand memory processes better.
Even though it’s technically a “school” activity, it’s one my students always
enjoyed and is fun for the whole family!
It gives us all a chance not only to share memories, but to connect with
each other and learn new perspectives.
Here are the directions:
Create
a visual map or diagram that depicts the path you take in recalling a specific memory.
Make sure it is a memory you think you share with someone else. It must be written out.
For
example, when I think about my daughter’s first day of kindergarten, I start
with a picture of her at age 5 in my mind.
Then I add my husband who was there too, and then the other children at
the bus stop. From there, I remember how the bus was late, feeling very upset, leaving
to go teach my first class of the semester, and then to her
waving goodbye to me. Suddenly, I see her leaving for college.
Then I see her first day as a teacher.
Next,
go to the other person who shares this memory with you. Ask them, “What do you
remember about this event?” Either ask
them to write out their path for that memory or you do it as they tell you what
they remember (Make sure you do not interrupt them while they recalling the
event).
Finally,
share your memory with them. You might
be surprised how different your memories are.
For
example, when I asked my husband what he remembered about our daughter’s first
day of kindergarten, he responded “She was excited about wearing a dress with
pockets. After you left, we sat in beach
chairs waiting for the bus; it was so late! She had such a big smile when she
sat by the window and waved goodbye. Hard to believe she is grown now and that
was so long ago. She is teaching now. Doesn’t seem possible.”
Ultimately, the goal is for the two (or more of you) to talk
about the similarities and differences in your memories. How similar/different
were they? What do you think accounts for the similarities/differences?
Most students feel this exercise makes the memory more whole;
they learn that an event can be special to people, but that what makes it special can be very
different.
At this moment in time, we are all concerned about loss;
this is a wonderful way to focus on what will always bind us to our friends and
family – love, concern, and memories.
In 1953 Frank Sinatra sang, “My
love must be a kind of blind love/I can’t see anyone but you…You are here and
so am I/Maybe millions of people go by/But they all disappear from view/And I
only have eyes for you”*. The fact that
at least 12 other entertainers have remade this song (most recently in 2017 by
Kevin Morby) suggests that these words resonated with many people.
For many, the “no looking”
rule has become an indicator of true love.
If a significant other even glances momentarily at a random stranger it
has the potential to become an argument about faithfulness. Glancing has become as serious an offense as
acting upon ones momentary impulse. For
me, cheating involves engaging in emotional or physical intimacy with someone
other than your significant other.
Glancing, an action that is unintentional and meaningless, is different
from looking. Looking is longer, it
involves some attentiveness to detail, and some thinking about what one is
looking at. So a look – if it results in
feeling hurt or disrespected must be addressed.
I think it says more about
the person who gets upset by it than it does about the person who glanced. I’m sure that statement stirs some
controversy and some comments – so let me elaborate.
A strong reaction to a glance
is essentially a sign of jealousy.
Cognitive psychologists would suggest that the offended person was
struggling with some irrational thoughts of their own. Examples might be (1) Everyone is a cheater,
(2) I can’t control myself so you can’t control yourself, or (3) I can’t be
trusted so neither can you. A
psychologist who favors a humanist approach would suggest that the real/ideal
self has been split and the offended person feels unworthy of love. Examples might be (1) I should be more
interesting so he/she does not have to look at others, (2) he/she would rather
be with them than with me, or (3) I should look for someone new and show them
how it feels to be ignored like this. A
Freudian would examine the childhood issues that led to this trauma over a
glance. For example, (1) did the
parent/nurturer abandon them at a young age? (2) did the parent/nurturer make
them compete for affection? or (3) did the parent/nurturer cause them to feel
insignificant in some way? Finally, a
behavioral psychologist would examine if the offended person (1) has been
rewarded for acting like they have been slighted in other situations, (2) has been
rewarded for starting unnecessary arguments, or (3) has been rewarded for
creating drama.
Solutions based on cognitive
psychology involve limiting our irrational thoughts, often accomplished by
minimizing generalizations and checking for both confirming and disconfirming
evidence. For example, it is true that some people cheat; it is not true that everyone does. Humanists seek greater congruity between
real/ideal self by helping a person limit conditions of worth, often
accomplished by examining the shoulds we say.
For example, by saying I need/want to be more interesting, one takes the
“power” of insecurity away from others and causes a person to take
responsibility for becoming who one seeks to be. Freudians would use techniques to uncover the
pains of childhood. By doing so the
offended person would come to realize that they are acting out toward their
significant other in a way that is really meant to resolve a hurt caused by a
parent. Finally, the behaviorist would
seek to help the offended person by helping the significant other learn to
ignore behaviors that relate to unjustified accusations of cheating and reward
behaviors that build trust.
So go out and glance anywhere
and everywhere. The important thing is
that you look at your significant other.
“Love is patient, love is
kind and is not jealous” ~1 Corinthians 13:4
If you enjoy reading my posts, please subscribe using the signup box at the side of the page. Once you sign up, you will receive a confirming email. When you respond to that confirmation email, you will get updates on any new items I post. It is my hope that these blogs are a starting point for great discussions and shared ideas. I look forward to reading the comments you post.
Every time I hear the term “work-life balance”, I picture a
seesaw with work on one side and all
the rest of life on the other. We accept
this concept as a reality, as a given.
We suggest that accepting this “fact” is a sign of maturity and
adulthood.
But, to me it is such an unbalanced concept. It is telling us that work is separate from
life, not an integrated part of it. It
means work is the priority and everything else must be prioritized on the life
side – one’s significant other, siblings, parents, friends, hobbies, and chores,
sleep – everything else has to be prioritized on the “life” side. In other words, work gets 50% and all the
rest of life gets the other 50%.
I cannot see how it is possible to actually balance all of
life into the hours allocated to it. For
example, if you are lucky enough to have a ten-hour workday (two hour commute,
lunch, seven hours of work), then you are left with 14 hours for everything
else. If you follow the recommendations
of health professionals then you need eight hours for sleep, leaving six hours one’s
significant other, siblings, parents, friends, hobbies, and chores (food
shopping, laundry, exercising). Let’s
face it, for most of us, “life” time is further curtailed by our constant
connection to work, where we are expected to check our emails/texts from our
employer or, as salaried employees, we are expected to bring work home with us
(literally or emotionally). Clearly,
that imbalance is what is causing frustration, dissatisfaction, and stress in
our relationships.
I often wonder why we consider work separate from life
rather than a part of it. Perhaps sociologists are right and that work has created
such alienation that we no longer feel connected to it. This seems like a reasonable explanation of
why we accept the idea that there is work and there is the rest of life.
Is this the best way for us to think about our day, though?
What if the term were changed to life-work balance? What
would our lives look like then? I won’t
list out what I think it would look like; but I do hope you take a moment to fantasize
about it.
What if it were simply life balance? What if we placed life in the center of the
seesaw and we were able to rearrange the parts on a daily basis giving priority
where it felt right/needed/ genuine?
I hope you are fantasizing about what life would look like if life were at the center and work was simply one of the priorities we had. That seems so much healthier to me.
Categories determine the way we think about the world. Perhaps it is time to change the way we categorize
work-life. I certainly think it is.
Words are so interesting.
The first time I realized that the word “sentence” could mean “a group
of words that convey meaning” or “what you get when convicted of a crime,”
well, I felt my brain explode. How could
a word mean such different things? English
teachers explained the importance of context clues. We know what the word means because of the
surrounding words – the context that the creator has developed.
In our relationships, we often believe that the shared
context is the relationship so the common words we use must mean the same thing
to both of us. We believe that a word has shared meaning and we do not need to check
whether or not that is so. When we are
talking to our significant others, we generally feel quite certain that they
know what we mean when use a word.
Unfortunately, this is not always the case and these
misunderstandings can have negative consequences. For example, I worked with a couple where the
woman had never – in 8 years – said she was sorry. Over time, he had become convinced that she
was indifferent to his feelings; she simply didn’t care if he was hurt. During a session, she stated quite
emphatically, “Why would I say I am sorry?
I NEVER do anything to intentionally hurt him!” And there it was. For her, sorry meant she hurt him on purpose
and with purpose. In fact, over that
same time period, she had become convinced that he thought she was a terrible
person because every time he asked her to say she was sorry, she thought he was
saying she had hurt him intentionally.
For him, the word sorry meant, “I know you’re hurt and I wish you weren’t”
– it had nothing to do with whether the hurt happened with intent.
Now, think about what the word “commitment” means. Really think.
How would you define it?
I worked with a couple that had very different
interpretations of the word. They had
come in to talk about where their relationship was headed. They had been living
together for quite some time. She said
she had begun to question his commitment.
He said, “I’m here aren’t I?” – he felt his actions provided all the
evidence of commitment. Eventually, I
gave them each a piece of paper and asked them to write down what the word
commitment meant to them. She wrote
three lines “living together, being supportive of individual goals, working
toward mutual goals”. He wrote several
paragraphs. The first began “commitment,
being committed. Being
institutionalized.” He went on to say
“Nobody can ask for commitment. It must
be freely given” and added that commitment is a synonym for a trap, a “device
meant to capture a living thing, so that it may be subjugated to the control of
another entity”. His focus was on
commitment as a method for restricting freedom.
At first glance, these comments certainly seem irreconcilable, making
one question if this couple should even be together. Was this a deal breaker? https://real-matters.com/?p=19
Examining their definitions more closely, though, revealed
that their relationship goals were not all that different. The word commitment had only negative
connotations for him, but as we discussed their relationship further, it became very clear that he wanted to spend
his life with her; he wanted to make her happy, he wanted everything on her
list. He felt his actions demonstrated
that he wanted to live together (he was there, as he had said), they were
supportive of individual goals, and they were working toward mutual goals. She agreed whole-heartedly.
What they needed was a new language in their relationship. She
learned to hear the commitment in his actions and he learned to use his words
more often. They both stopped using the
word commitment and learned to see the beauty in the freedom to freely choose
to be together.
This couple has been married for many years now. Every holiday season they send me a card and
in it they write, “Still married, but not committed” – makes me smile every time.
What can we all learn from this? Among other things, we can learn that the
assumptions we make about how someone else feels must be shared with them so
they can be checked and addressed. We may be wrong about what they are thinking
and feeling. We can learn that the words
we say to each other truly matter and that even words that are “common,” words
that are used frequently by so many of us, can have very different emotional
connotations to them. When we reflect on
the recurring arguments we have with someone who holds a special place in our
lives, we might want to look more closely at the words we are using. We might share our definition of those words
and ask for theirs. We may discover that
we have the same goal and it is the words getting in our way, and not the
sentiment behind them.
~“Your assumptions are your windows on the world. Scrub them
off every once in a while, or the light won’t come in.” ~ Isaac Asimov
Social Media has certainly impacted all of our lives. It has helped us connect to those far away,
it has helped us help each other and mitigate the impact of natural and manmade
disasters, it has helped us share the joys of everyday events, grow our businesses,
and so much more. It has also impacted
us negatively, making it easier to perpetrate scams, ostracize those who are
already marginalized, spread rumors, and provide unrealistic physical and
emotional ideals. After discussing this
in class, a student wrote what I found to be a very insightful reflection on
the issue. She graciously agreed to
allow me to post it here. She raised
many important issues and I look forward to a lively dialogue via your
comments.
The Potential Impact
of Social Media ~ Raquel Weinberg
When we discussed social phobia as well as the adverse
affects of social media and technology in the beginning of the class, I was at
first reminded of the children I babysit who I find more and more to be
obsessed with their devices. Whenever I see this, I am always reminded of
myself at their age (5 & 8) I think about how at the time I had no clue
what the Internet really was and phones were completely off my radar (forget
about iPads!).
I often times find myself confused by the world that is
social media. As someone who grew up sort of on the cusp of social media
becoming “a thing” it’s very interesting as well as alienating to
have experienced and to be able to objectively see both sides. On one hand I
can clearly remember a time before social media, when all my friends would talk
to each other face to face, and there was no guess-work when it came to
relationships. What you saw was what you got. However, I was in middle school
when social media really took off (when Facebook suddenly wasn’t just for
college aged kids) and navigating the social environment suddenly became a
whole lot more complicated. All of a sudden people could say one thing in
person and a completely different thing online, and the discrepancy between the
two “personas” was (and still is) strange to me.
We talked about how though we have social media now and all
these means for connection, we are somehow more disconnected as ever. I think
social media plays such a huge role in this because no one is authentically
themselves online (or at the very least it is rare). Everyone wants to portray
the most perfect version of themselves (stemming back to the real vs. ideal
selves) and because social media allows us to create these “ideal”
versions of ourselves, I think many people get caught up in that fantasy. It
becomes an addiction; people love the attention this “ideal internet
persona” that they’ve created brings them. The likes, the fans, in some
cases money, are all incentive to continue falsifying their lives, but at what
cost?
I believe that because we are not portraying our
“real” selves online, that we as people are consequently unable to
form meaningful and true relationships through social media. Because we are not
speaking to that person, we are speaking instead to the persona this person has
created that they think others will like better. In the end however, all we are
met with is a phony mask, void of any real depth because it is not really them.
And I believe that because of the lack of sincerity behind
these social media masks we put on each day, that people are alienated by their
interactions in everyday life. In real life, they do not receive the mindless
praise for the things they would online. But also they then no longer know how
they should act in reality vs. social media. We have learned how to have
conversations between personas, not conversations between people.
This is a topic I’m really passionate about because although I do believe that social media, when used properly, is an amazing tool (really truly amazing), it is also completely rotting us as a society. Our priorities are completely skewed; we idolize people who take deals from companies to sell garbage to their impressionable fans. Hype creators who put their lives and others at risk for the sake of a picture of video. And what are we learning from this as a society? What are kids growing up today learning? It’s truly frightening where we have allowed this to go.
I have spoken at many PTA meetings and it is always my
routine to get there early so I can connect with the audience before the talk
begins. I often get to listen in on the
executive committee meetings that precede these talks. On one particular occasion, the committee was
discussing purchasing planners for the elementary school children and they were
emphasizing that the planners needed to have an area for daily, weekly, and
monthly goals so the children could learn to work toward long-term career goals.
I remember thinking “why?”
Why must 5 year olds learn to document the steps they must take to reach
a goal? I mean, I do understand that they must learn to make a commitment, to
learn follow-through, and to keep a promise.
But, they must also learn that it is important to learn to zig-zag a
little, to find a new way to a goal or to find a new goal all together. In essence, it is important to learn it’s
okay to change direction – in our goals, in our relationships, and in
our careers.
There is ample evidence that people are somewhat programmed
to “stay the path”. Gestalt
psychologists demonstrated the principle of continuity. In terms of vision, it refers to the tendency
to perceive an object based on the least number of changes in direction. For example, it is easier to see “X” as two
intersecting lines than to see it as two “Vs”, one on top of the other (four
changes in direction) or four open-ended triangles. All of those are possible, but two lines –
the fewest possible changes in direction – are the easiest to see.
As a principle of social psychology, continuity refers to not changing your mind about something
or someone. In general, it takes us
about 20 seconds to form an opinion of someone; after that, we tend to seek
evidence that confirms our initial opinion.
We can change our minds, of course, but it takes a considerable amount
of disconfirming evidence for us to do so.
If our first impression is that someone is nice, and then
they do something hurtful, we tend to make an excuse for their behavior. We will say, “everyone messes up sometimes,”
or “I’m sure they didn’t mean it.” If, however,
our first impression is that someone is not a good person and they do something
nice, we will often look at that act as a manipulation of some kind. We will say things like, “I’m sure they had
an ulterior motive for doing that.”
Continuity, as one can see from these examples, can impact
our relationships. We might stay in a
relationship too long because we cannot change our mind; we cannot accept the
disconfirming evidence coming our way.
We might continue to treat our children as, well, children, rather than
as the adults they have become. We might
treat our parents as self-sufficient when they have, in fact, become frail with
age. We might miss opportunities to
allow our relationship to grow because we do not see the changes that our
significant other is experiencing. Our
experiences (school, work, travel, people we meet) change us every day; unfortunately,
continuity can blind us to seeing those changes in ourselves or in others.
Continuity might also prevent us from changing our career
path. Which brings us back to that PTA
meeting. Some of the adults were very
concerned that children learn to set realistic goals. They did not want them to pursue goals such
as becoming a princess or a Ninja Turtle or a singer or a ballerina. The adults, of course, were looking at the
job market. I hear those same arguments
on the larger societal level where colleges are considering dropping majors in
history, philosophy, and many social sciences because the job market in those
areas are not as robust as in STEM programs.
While this is true, it is also true that many great
accomplishments come from the passionate person who pursues a dream, regardless
of the odds against achieving it.
Sometimes it is the zig-zag of life that allows disparate experiences to
gel into a unique niche within a career.
Perhaps the child who wants to be a princess becomes a leader in
industry. Perhaps the Ninja Turtle
becomes a Marine or a law enforcement person, or a firefighter. Perhaps the singer becomes a mathematician
who works with the fractions that were once musical notes. Perhaps it is the switching between and among
dreams that lets us find the one that will bring meaning to our lives.
So many students in my classes tell me that they cannot
change their career plans. They have
invested too much money and time into the goal.
They are already unhappy with the choice, but they continue in the
pursuit. I hear couples in a
relationship saying they are already 30 so starting over with someone else is
not possible. I hear older people saying
they have lived somewhere “forever” and that if they move, they will become
disoriented. I hear young children say
they will “never” be good in school.
What seems true to me is that whenever you feel like you are
walking in quicksand, when each step you take requires more energy than you
have, that is when it is time to consider changing direction. It is time to consider that the other path
might be the “right” one for you, the one that allows you to step lightly and
feel enthusiasm. It is not a sign of
failure to change direction; it is sign that you are open-minded enough to
consider all of the evidence (confirming and disconfirming) and brave enough to
begin anew.