October 13th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Is Albert Einstein’s Special Relativity incompatible with the very equations upon which science’s greatest theory is built? New observations made by many scientists and engineers appear to contradict the great scientist’s ideas. Apparently there are implicit contradictions present within Relativity’s foundational ideas, documents and equations. One individual has even pointed that quotations from the 1905 document and Einstein’s contemporaries as well as interpretations of the Relativity equations clearly and concisely describe a confused and obviously erroneous theory. It is time therefore, for science to update its thinking on this theory with a comprehensive analysis of the history leading up to, during and after that revolutionary year of Special Relativity.
As this is the 100 year anniversary of the original release of Special Relativity, a review of the original assumptions, documents and ideas which led to the acceptance of this theory is timely and warranted. Every year millions of students are taught this theory without a critical analysis of Relativity. Relativity Theory consists of its two variants Special Relativity and General Relativity and is considered the cornerstone of modern physics.
Albert Einstein borrowed from the ideas of Fitzgerald, Lorentz and Voigt to create a new concept of the universe. His first work in this regard later came to be known as Special Relativity and contained many controversial ideas which today are considered axiomatic. Amongst these are Length Contraction, Time Dilation, the Twin Paradox and the equivalence of mass and energy summarized in the equation E=mc2.
This equation became the shining capstone of the new theory along with its first & second postulates, namely, that the laws of nature are the same from all perspectives and that the speed of light ‘c’ is constant in a vacuum regardless of perspective. Further, the theory also predicted an increase in mass with velocity. Numerous examples have been given of the ‘proof’ of the validity of Special Relativity.
Most notably, experiments using particle accelerators have sped particles to incredible velocities which apparently provide confirmation of Einstein’s theory. However, doubts remain in the scientific community who have never totally given up the comfort of a Newtonian world view. This is readily apparent in that they refer to the Newton’s ‘Law’ of Gravitation whilst Special Relativity (SR) and General Relativity (GR) are given the polite attribution ‘The Theory of’ or simply SR ‘theory’ and GR ‘theory.’ Einstein would continue working on the ideas of Special Relativity until producing the aforementioned even more controversial treatise.
In his later more comprehensive work called the Theory of General Relativity (1916), Einstein proposed a major re-thinking of cosmology. He conceived of a space time continuum that is curved by mass; in other words, planets, stars, galaxies and other stellar objects cause a curvature of space time. The movement of these objects are determined by the aforementioned curvature.
As a result of these ideas, our understanding of geometry, math, physics, science and the universe would never be the same. However, some scientists are reporting that speed of light is not constant from different experimental observations. One has even reported errors in the fundamental equations. If so, this would require a major rethinking of the known cosmological models and assumptions of modern physics.
Thousands of independent non profit schools are governed by Boards of Directors made up primarily of parents. These volunteers agree to take responsibility for school finances, fundraising, planning, budgeting, and oversight of the school principal or director. With little or no training, private school Boards tackle projects involving finance, real estate, leasing, contracts, insurance, and liability. In some cases these Boards accomplish great things by working together with school staff and parents to build a community of support for the children in their care. However, often times, private school Boards fail to support their institutions and lead them into crises or decline. Board members are rarely given the training they need to approach their jobs effectively.
One of the most important ideas for Board members to understand is the challenge of being both and owner and a customer in the same organization. In most of our day to day life we are either owner or customer. As owners of a business we strive to make decisions that will benefit us long term. We seek to satisfy all of our customers, even those whose needs differ widely from others. We don’t make business policies to please one particular customer or another. Instead we try to create policy that meets the organizations goal, supports its mission and supports the greatest number of customers.
The customer’s needs on the other hand, are primarily short term and personal. Customers simply want to find the product or service they desire at the best price. They don’t concern themselves too much with the needs of others, long term organizational goals or the needs of other customers. Customers seek out products or services from a variety of sources with little concern about the long term needs of the supplier.
One of the common pitfalls of the parent-run school Board is the belief among Boar members that their job is to represent their fellow customers. We hear slogans like “the customer is always right” and Board members believe that as parents, they are appointed or elected to represent the customer interests of all their friends and acquaintances. The truth is that to do their job well they must take off their customer hat when they enter the Board room. The Board and its committees must always be wearing their ownership hats when doing the Board’s work. This doesn’t mean that the school’s customers have no where to go for service and redress. In a well run school they get their customer service from the the staff, the teachers and and administrators. This is no different than in a for-profit business. Imagine you are at a fast food restaurant and you get a cold cup of coffee. You don’t go to the corporate Board of Directors for a new cup. You speak to the person behind the counter.
In a non profit school, the members of the Board are the ownership. They are elected or appointed to represent the ownership interests of the school’s stake holders. They guide and maneuver the institution within the greater marketplace. They set prices, policies and planning goals for all of the school’s stake holders including staff and parents. If they sit at the Board table wearing their customer hats they will create an institution that meets their personal and short term needs and will leave the school unable to meet the needs of all its customers for the long term. Only by thinking as owners, and taking into account the needs of all the school’s stake holders (both parents and staff), can the Board guide and nurture the institution that they love. This is not an easy task, and getting agreement from all Board members to take off their customer hats when making policy is not always attainable. However, it is critical if the Board hopes to get beyond the short term cost cutting that so often hinders the stability of non profit institutions.
The toughest part of thinking like an owner comes when the Board is confronted by customers who pressure the Board to make customer-friendly policies like the lowest possible tuition rates. Low-cost tuition is often associated with low teacher salaries and benefits since labor at a non profit school is regularly 70 to 80% of the total budget. Lower tuition through low teacher wages keeps the customers happy but degrades trust between the Board and staff and leads to higher teacher turnover which negatively effects programs. The trick to having meaningful discussions with parents from an ownership perspective is to educate them about the importance of leaving their customer hats at the door when school policy is discussed. The Board must make it clear to all stake holders that in the Boardroom the ownership perspective rules. Once this is understood the tough decisions about improving programs and budgeting for longevity and stability can be addressed with a common sense of purpose.
Nature vs Nurture theories have wasted a lot of energy of human beings. Plato is considered first to realize that you are made of not only flesh but also an intellectual soul.
The issue may be much older…
In Greek Mythology, when gods created man, they endowed him with divinity. However, the man started challenging them. They feared his potentials and decided to deprive him of the might.
“Where to hide the divinity?” was the big question
They considered heights of icy mountains, limits of shining stars and pits of the earth. But every place was accessible to man’s capabilities.
Then they decided to hide it within the man himself.
Since then the man has been climbing icy mountains. He has navigated deep seas. He has traversed moon. His machines have even touched Mars. But he is still looking for his ‘lost paradise’.
Man, it is inside you!
They call it personality now. It is ‘scientific’ to ask how it comes into being. Is it inheritable? Is it natural? Is it outcome of environment? Have you any will to change your behaviors or you are bound to follow the dictates?
Nature vs Nurture theories focus upon these issues. The new discoveries in genome and quantum physics have revived the debate. Incidentally, more they discover, more they bewilder. The abstraction continues intensifying.
How to Define Nature VS Nurture Theories
There are three distinctive schools of thought.
1- Personality is Natural:
This group believes that your personality is result of evolutionary process. You inherit behaviors due to complex interaction of genes. They control your behaviors. So you don’t have a free will to act otherwise.
2- Personality is Nurtured:
This group argues that you don’t get your personality inherited. Your mind is a blank slate at your birth. It is your environment, education and culture that make up your behaviors. There are differences on the issue of ‘free will’ to change your behaviors.
3- Personality is Spiritual:
This group claims that your personality is result of neither nature nor nurture. It is gift of some deity. They are split on the issue of ‘free will’.
Nature VS Nurture Theories and Evolutionary Psychology
Darwin’s theory of evolution led William Hamilton, George Williams and many others to the idea of personality evolution. They proposed that like physical organs, your personality is result of natural selection for survival of the fittest. You do as your genes dictate.
They suggest that fear of death, fear of injury, fear of snakes, shyness, addiction, criminality and sexual orientation are main examples of inheritable behaviors. Steven Pinker (2004) includes religiousness, liberalism and conservativeness in the list. William Paley considers cognitive capabilities, temperaments and cheating behaviors inheritable.
However, there is strong criticism on this approach.
1- There is no single universal behavior which can be proved evolutionary. Even fear of death, that seems natural to all, is overridden in crusades, suicides and suicide bombings.
2- You are made of 25,000 to 30,000 genes. They are merely twice to the number in a fruit fly. Chimpanzees share 95% of your genetic characteristics. However, they don’t share even 10% of your behaviors.
3- People don’t differ in behaviors as they do differ in skin pigments. Extroverts, introverts, optimists, pessimists, criminals, liberals etc are found in all societies and cultures. Even identical twins (with 100% similar genes) and fraternal twins (with 50% similar genes) behave differently in most of the cases.
4- No genome scientist has related genes or a set of genes with any kind of behaviors.
5- There are a good number of living organisms and fossils which suggest intermediary stages to the physical evolution. However, no such intermediary stages are available for personality evolution.
Nature VS Nurture Theories and Physics
The discoveries in physics have always provided new meat to the nature vs nurture theories. The conclusions of Newton and Einstein helped the people to believe that future events can be predicted with the help of true knowledge of matter and natural laws. This led psychologists to suggest that your future behaviors can be predetermined. The whole mechanism of psychometrics follows this hypothesis.
However, quantum physics has changed the situation altogether. Evidence proves that you can’t make two (almost) simultaneous measurements of observables correctly. For example:
1- Position and momentum of a particle
2- Position and direction of a particle
3- Time and frequency of a sound wave
4- Wavelength and magnitude of a sound wave
The list goes on…
The quantum physics has shaken determinism. So much so the scientists have to devise “Heisenberg uncertainty principle” which challenges that any physical event can be predicted precisely in time and space.
Do you think that particles are too small to affect big events?
Reconsider it.
What would happen if Hitler had died in his young age of cancer, which can occur with a slight genetic mutation?
Nature VS Nurture Theories and Reality
“What was the first cause?” Aristotle had asked centuries before
It has been proved that the universe is not result of infinite series of collaborating causes and events. There was a first event; the big bang just 13.7 billions year ago. What was its cause?
There can be only two answers:
1- There was no preceding cause, or
2- There was a first Causer
When you affirm the first statement, you agree that there might be other events which don’t have preceding causes. The birth of personality is one of them.
However, if you agree with the second statement, then you are siding with the spiritual school of thought.
What About Environment?
It plays very important role in making of your behaviors. However, any behavior that you acquire is amendable. Secondly, it is not only environment that influences you, the vice versa is also true. You can count hundreds of names who influenced their environments, cultures and societies.
The best advice is to believe in your personality. Use your free will to develop and refine your behaviors. Utilize all out capabilities to collect small successes daily to build bigger one in future. Your way of thinking and style of doing shall determine your destination.
Meanwhile, let the counsels of nature vs nurture theories to continue with their confusing debates.
Evidence of hypnotic-like phenomena appears in many ancient cultures. The writer of Genesis seems familiar with the anaesthetic power of hypnosis when he reports that God put Adam “into a deep sleep” to take his rib to form Eve. Other ancient records suggest hypnosis was used by the oracle at Delphi and in rites in ancient Egypt (Hughes and Rothovius, 1996). The modern history of hypnosis begins in the late 1700s, when a French physician, Anton Mesmer, revived an interest in hypnosis.
1734-1815 Franz Anton Mesmer was born in Vienna. Mesmer is considered the father of hypnosis. He is remembered for the term mesmerism which described a process of inducing trance through a series of passes he made with his hands and/or magnets over people. He worked with a person’s animal magnetism (psychic and electromagnetic energies). The medical community eventually discredited him despite his considerable success treating a variety of ailments. His successes offended the medical establishment of the time, who arranged for an official French government investigating committee. This committee included Benjamin Franklin, then the American ambassador to France, and Joseph Guillotine, a French physician who introduced a never-fail device for physically separating the mind from the rest of the body.
1795-1860 James Braid, an English physician, originally opposed to mesmerism (as it had become known) who subsequently became interested. He said that cures were not due to animal magnetism however, they were due to suggestion. He developed the eye fixation technique (also known as Braidism) of inducing relaxation and called it hypnosis (after Hypnos, the Greek god of sleep) as he thought the phenomena was a form of sleep. Later, realising his error, he tried to change the name to monoeidism (meaning influence of a single idea)however, the original name stuck. 1825-1893 Jean Marie Charcot a French neurologist,disagreed with the Nancy School of Hypnotism and contended that hypnosis was simply a manifestation of hysteria. There was bitter rivalry between Charcot and the Nancy group (Liebault and Bernheim). He revived Mesmer’s theory of Animal Magnetism and identified the three stages of trance; lethargy, catalepsy and somnambulism.
1845-1947 Pierre Janet was a French neurologist and psychologist who was initially opposed to the use of hypnosis until he discovered its relaxing effects and promotion of healing. Janet was one of the few people who continued to show an interest in hypnosis during the psychoanalytical rage.
1849-1936 Ivan Petrovich Pavlov - Russian psychologist who actually was more focused on the study of the digestive process. He is known primarily for his development of the concept of the conditioned reflex (or Stimulus Response Theory). In his classic experiment, he trained hungry dogs to salivate at the sound of a bell, which was previously associated with the sight of food. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology in 1904 for his work on digestive secretions. Though he had nothing to do with hypnosis, his Stimulus Response Theory is a cornerstone in linking and anchoring behaviours, particularly in NLP.
1857-1926 Emile Coue, a physician who formulated the Laws of Suggestion. He is also known for encouraging his patients to say to themselves 20-30 times a night before going to sleep; “Everyday in every way, I am getting better and better.” He also discovered that delivering positive suggestions when prescribing medication proved to be a more effective cure than prescribing medications alone. He eventually abandoned the concept of hypnosis in favour of just using suggestion, feeling hypnosis and the hypnotic state impaired the efficiency of the suggestion.
Coue’s Laws of Suggestion
The Law of Concentrated Attention
” Whenever attention is concentrated on an idea over and over again, it spontaneously tends to realise itself”
The Law of Reverse Action
“The harder one tries to do something, the less chance one has of success”
The Law of Dominant Effect
“A stronger emotion tends to replace a weaker one”
1856-1939 Sigmund Freud travelled to Nancy and studied with Liebault and Bernheim, and then did additional study with Charcot. Freud did not incorporate hypnosis in his therapeutic work however because he felt he could not hypnotise patients to a sufficient depth, felt that the cures were temporary, and that hynosis stripped patients of their defences. Freud was considered a poor hypnotist given his paternal manner. However, his clients often went into trance and he often, unknowingly, performed non-verbal inductions when he would place his hand on his patient’s head to signify the Doctor dominant, patient submissive roles. Because of his early dismissal of hypnosis in favour of psychoanalysis, hypnosis was almost totally ignored.
1875-1961 Carl Jung, a student and colleague of Freud’s, rejected Freud’s psychoanalytical approach and developed his own interests. He developed the concept of the collective unconscious and archetypes. Though he did not actively use hypnosis, he encouraged his patients to use active imagination to change old memories. He often used the concept of the inner guide, in the healing work. He believed that the inner mind could be accessed through tools like the I Ching and astrology. He was rejected by the conservative medical community as a mystic. However, many of his ideas and theories are actively embraced by healers to this day.
1932-1974 Milton Erickson, a psychologist and psychiatrist pioneered the art of indirect suggestion in hypnosis. He is considered to be the father of modern hypnosis. His methods bypassed the conscious mind through the use of both verbal and nonverbal pacing techniques including metaphor, confusion, and many others. He was a colourful character and has immensely influenced the practice of contemporary hypnotherapy, and its official acceptance by the AMA. His work, combined with the work of Satir and Perls, was the basis for Bandler and Grinder’s Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP).
Do you recognize the names Giant Slalom, Luge, and Curling? Yes? Then you must be ready for the Winter Olympics! Here are a few suggestions to make them more meaningful to your children:
1. Let each child or small group of children choose an event to research. The events may be their favorites or ones they would like to know more about. (NOTE: A list of Winter Olympic events is at the end of this article.)
2. Tell the children what you want them to find out…the history of the sport, the rules of it, the equipment needed, people who have performed that event in past Winter Olympics…whatever you decide. This will keep them focused and help them write their reports using main ideas.
3. Classify the Olympic events into categories. Which take place on the snow? On the track? On the rink?
4. Make a video collage with snippets of each event.
5. Hold your own Winter Olympics! If you live where it does not snow, use props that can substitute for skis (shoeboxes, foil), ski poles (broomsticks), and whatever else you can find. Amend the rules for your age group. For the Medal Ceremony, use gold, silver, and copper pens to make the ribbons. Have your children sequence the activities in which they participated.
6. Alphabetize the names of the Olympic events.
7. Use a TV Guide to practice reading schedules and find the days, times, and channels for specific sports.
Here is a list of Winter Olympic events:
Giant Slalom, Luge, Curling, Speed Skating, Ski Jumping, Freestyle Aerials, Biathlon, Super-G, Ice Dancing, Cross Country, Combined Downhill, Slalom, Short Track, Bobsleigh, Nordic Combined,
Figure Skating, Freestyle Moguls, Snowboarding, Ice Hockey, Downhill, Skeleton
Enjoy the Winter Olympics!
I hope these ideas are useful and inspire your own creative thinking.
And remember…Reading is FUNdamental!
No social theory has been more influential and, later, more reviled than psychoanalysis. It burst upon the scene of modern thought, a fresh breath of revolutionary and daring imagination, a Herculean feat of model-construction, and a challenge to established morals and manners. It is now widely considered nothing better than a confabulation, a baseless narrative, a snapshot of Freud’s tormented psyche and thwarted 19th century Mitteleuropa middle class prejudices.
Most of the criticism is hurled by mental health professionals and practitioners with large axes to grind. Few, if any, theories in psychology are supported by modern brain research. All therapies and treatment modalities - including medicating one’s patients - are still forms of art and magic rather than scientific practices. The very existence of mental illness is in doubt - let alone what constitutes “healing”. Psychoanalysis is in bad company all around.
Some criticism is offered by practicing scientists - mainly experimentalists - in the life and exact (physical) sciences. Such diatribes frequently offer a sad glimpse into the critics’ own ignorance. They have little idea what makes a theory scientific and they confuse materialism with reductionism or instrumentalism and correlation with causation.
Few physicists, neuroscientists, biologists, and chemists seem to have plowed through the rich literature on the psychophysical problem. As a result of this obliviousness, they tend to proffer primitive arguments long rendered obsolete by centuries of philosophical debates.
Science frequently deals matter-of-factly with theoretical entities and concepts - quarks and black holes spring to mind - that have never been observed, measured, or quantified. These should not be confused with concrete entities. They have different roles in the theory. Yet, when they mock Freud’s trilateral model of the psyche (the id, ego, and superego), his critics do just that - they relate to his theoretical constructs as though they were real, measurable, “things”.
The medicalization of mental health hasn’t helped either.
Certain mental health afflictions are either correlated with a statistically abnormal biochemical activity in the brain &ndash or are ameliorated with medication. Yet the two facts are not ineludibly facets of the same underlying phenomenon. In other words, that a given medicine reduces or abolishes certain symptoms does not necessarily mean they were caused by the processes or substances affected by the drug administered. Causation is only one of many possible connections and chains of events.
To designate a pattern of behavior as a mental health disorder is a value judgment, or at best a statistical observation. Such designation is effected regardless of the facts of brain science. Moreover, correlation is not causation. Deviant brain or body biochemistry (once called “polluted animal spirits”) do exist &ndash but are they truly the roots of mental perversion? Nor is it clear which triggers what: do the aberrant neurochemistry or biochemistry cause mental illness &ndash or the other way around?
That psychoactive medication alters behavior and mood is indisputable. So do illicit and legal drugs, certain foods, and all interpersonal interactions. That the changes brought about by prescription are desirable &ndash is debatable and involves tautological thinking. If a certain pattern of behavior is described as (socially) “dysfunctional” or (psychologically) “sick” &ndash clearly, every change would be welcomed as “healing” and every agent of transformation would be called a “cure”.
The same applies to the alleged heredity of mental illness. Single genes or gene complexes are frequently “associated” with mental health diagnoses, personality traits, or behavior patterns. But too little is known to establish irrefutable sequences of causes-and-effects. Even less is proven about the interaction of nature and nurture, genotype and phenotype, the plasticity of the brain and the psychological impact of trauma, abuse, upbringing, role models, peers, and other environmental elements.
Nor is the distinction between psychotropic substances and talk therapy that clear-cut. Words and the interaction with the therapist also affect the brain, its processes and chemistry - albeit more slowly and, perhaps, more profoundly and irreversibly. Medicines &ndash as David Kaiser reminds us in “Against Biologic Psychiatry” (Psychiatric Times, Volume XIII, Issue 12, December 1996) &ndash treat symptoms, not the underlying processes that yield them.
So, what is mental illness, the subject matter of Psychoanalysis?
Someone is considered mentally “ill” if:
His conduct rigidly and consistently deviates from the typical, average behavior of all other people in his culture and society that fit his profile (whether this conventional behavior is moral or rational is immaterial), or
His judgment and grasp of objective, physical reality is impaired, and
His conduct is not a matter of choice but is innate and irresistible, and
His behavior causes him or others discomfort, and is
Dysfunctional, self-defeating, and self-destructive even by his own yardsticks.
Descriptive criteria aside, what is the essence of mental disorders? Are they merely physiological disorders of the brain, or, more precisely of its chemistry? If so, can they be cured by restoring the balance of substances and secretions in that mysterious organ? And, once equilibrium is reinstated &ndash is the illness “gone” or is it still lurking there, “under wraps”, waiting to erupt? Are psychiatric problems inherited, rooted in faulty genes (though amplified by environmental factors) &ndash or brought on by abusive or wrong nurturance?
These questions are the domain of the “medical” school of mental health.
Others cling to the spiritual view of the human psyche. They believe that mental ailments amount to the metaphysical discomposure of an unknown medium &ndash the soul. Theirs is a holistic approach, taking in the patient in his or her entirety, as well as his milieu.
The members of the functional school regard mental health disorders as perturbations in the proper, statistically “normal”, behaviors and manifestations of “healthy” individuals, or as dysfunctions. The “sick” individual &ndash ill at ease with himself (ego-dystonic) or making others unhappy (deviant) &ndash is “mended” when rendered functional again by the prevailing standards of his social and cultural frame of reference.
In a way, the three schools are akin to the trio of blind men who render disparate descriptions of the very same elephant. Still, they share not only their subject matter &ndash but, to a counter intuitively large degree, a faulty methodology.
As the renowned anti-psychiatrist, Thomas Szasz, of the State University of New York, notes in his article “The Lying Truths of Psychiatry”, mental health scholars, regardless of academic predilection, infer the etiology of mental disorders from the success or failure of treatment modalities.
This form of “reverse engineering” of scientific models is not unknown in other fields of science, nor is it unacceptable if the experiments meet the criteria of the scientific method. The theory must be all-inclusive (anamnetic), consistent, falsifiable, logically compatible, monovalent, and parsimonious. Psychological “theories” &ndash even the “medical” ones (the role of serotonin and dopamine in mood disorders, for instance) &ndash are usually none of these things.
The outcome is a bewildering array of ever-shifting mental health “diagnoses” expressly centred around Western civilization and its standards (example: the ethical objection to suicide). Neurosis, a historically fundamental “condition” vanished after 1980. Homosexuality, according to the American Psychiatric Association, was a pathology prior to 1973. Seven years later, narcissism was declared a “personality disorder“, almost seven decades after it was first described by Freud.
The reasons for initially trying different socially acceptable legal drugs (e.g. alcohol, cigarettes, etc.), and/ or illegal drugs, or for that matter any addictive behavior involvement (e.g. gambling, binge-eating, etc.) are multi-factored (e.g. peer-pressure, boredom, etc.). In the twentieth century approximately 65% (Helzer et al., 1990) of healthy American individuals (born in a family–free from a history of substance abuse for example, and raised in a positive environment with positive values and conditioning) experiment with underage drinking and possibly smoking cigarettes at least once as adolescents or during a “college dorm - binge drinking” - phase of life.
Because human behavior is so complex, an attempt to understand the reasons individuals continue to use, and/ or abuse themselves with substances and/ or maladaptive behaviors to the point of developing self-defeating behavior patterns and/ or other life-style dysfunctions or self-harm is enormously difficult to achieve. Many researchers therefore prefer to speak of risk factors that may contribute, but not be sufficient to cause addictions. They point to an eclectic bio-psychosocial approach that involves the multi-dimensional interactions of genetics, biochemistry, psychology, socio-cultural, and spiritual influences.
Risk Factors / Contributory Causes / Influences:
1. Genetics (family history) &ndash is known to play a role in causing susceptibility through such biological avenues as metabolic rates and sensitivity to alcohol and/ or other drugs or addictive behaviors.
2. Biochemistry &ndash the discovery of morphine-like substances called endorphins (runners high, etc.) and the so-called “pleasure pathway” &ndash the mesocorticolimbic dopamine pathway (MCLP). This is the brain center or possible anatomic site underlying addictions at which alcohol and other drugs stimulate to produce euphoria &ndash which then becomes the desired goal to attain (tolerance &ndash loss of control &ndash withdrawal).
3. Psychological Factors &ndash developmental personality traits, vulnerability to stress, and the desire for tension and symptom reduction from various mental health problems and traumatic life experiences.
4. Socio-cultural/ Spiritual Factors &ndash cultural attitudes, marital, relational, legal, financial, and religious psycho-social stressors (etc.), along with the existence of a so-called drug culture that promotes the availability of alcohol and other drugs and/ or addictive behaviors as tension reducers and/ or pain relievers.
Family genetics, and bio-psychosocial, historical, and developmental conditioning factors are difficult and sometimes impossible to be changed within individuals. The standardized performance-based Addictions Recovery Measurement System philosophy incorporates a bio-psychosocial disease model that focuses on a cognitive behavioral perspective in attempting to alter maladaptive thinking and improve a person’s abilities and behaviors to solve problems and plan for sustained recovery. Many healthcare consumers of addiction recovery services have a genetic pre-dispositional history for addiction. They have suffered and continue to suffer from past traumatic life experiences (e.g. physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, etc.) and often present with psychosocial stressors (e.g. occupational stress, family/ marital problems, etc.) leaving them with intense and confusing feelings (e.g. anger, anxiety, bitterness, fear, guilt, grief, loneliness, depression, and inferiority, etc.) that reinforce their already low self-esteem. The complex interaction of these factors can leave the individual with much deeper mental health problems involving self-hatred, self-punishment, self-denial, low self-control, low self-respect, and a severe low self-esteem condition, with an overall (sometimes hidden) negative self-identity.
There are many definitions for addiction as it is a complex phenomenon. The American Psychiatric Association avoids the term entirely. The World Health Organization defined addiction as “a state of periodic and/ or chronic intoxication produced by the repeated consumption of a natural or synthetic drug. This state of intoxication is manifested by an overpowering desire, need or compulsion with the presence of a tendency to increase the dose and evidence of phenomena of tolerance, abstinence and withdrawal, in which there is always psychic and physical dependence on the effects of the drug” (Gossop and Grant, 1990, p. 20).
Addictive diseases generally have been associated with substance abuse. More recently, the concept of addiction has been broadened to include behavior patterns that do not necessarily include alcohol or drugs. Bradshaw (1990) defines addiction as a “pathological relationship to any mood-altering person, thing, substance, or activity that has life-damaging consequences” (p. VIII). Arterburn and Felton (1992) define addiction as “the presence of a psychological and physiological dependency on a substance, relationship, or behavior” (p. 104). Shaef (1987) defines addiction as “any process over which we are powerless. Addiction takes control of us, causing us to do and think things that are inconsistent with our personal values, and which lead us to become progressively more compulsive and obsessive” (p. 18). She divides addictions into two broad categories: Substance addictions (e.g., alcohol, drugs, nicotine, and food, etc.) and process or behavioral addictions (e.g., gambling, food, religion, and sexual addictions, etc.).
Similar to alcohol and substance abuse disorders, process or behavioral addictions have personality factors that tend to characterize their etiologies, behavioral manifestations, and their resistance to change even though they do not involve a chemical addictive substance. For example, although most people can gamble occasionally, (e.g., Saturday night poker games, betting on major sporting events with friends, and/ or playing a slot machine while on vacation, etc.), an estimated six to ten million Americans lose control.
Pathological Gambling, according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR, 2000) is characterized by recurrent and persistent gambling behavior that disrupts family, personal, or vocational pursuits. It also involves continuous or periodic loss of control; a preoccupation with obtaining money for gambling; irrational behavior; and continuation of this behavior in spite of adverse consequences (Rosenthal, 1992).
People also develop dependencies on certain life-functioning activities that can be just as life threatening as drug addiction and just as socially and psychologically damaging as alcoholism. As noted previously 30.5% of American adults suffer from morbid obesity or being 100 lbs. or more above ideal body weight. Some do suffer from hormonal or metabolic disorders, but most obese individuals simply consume more calories than they burn due to an out of control overeating Food Addiction lifestyle pattern.
Hyper-obesity resulting from gross, habitual overeating is considered to be more like the problems found in those ingrained personality disorders that involve loss of control over appetite of some kind (Orford, 1985). Binge-eating Disorder episodes are characterized in part by a feeling that one cannot stop or control how much or what one is eating (DSM-IV-TR, 2000).
Williams (1993) suggests that religious addicts experience three of the same symptoms as other addicts: craving or the need for a fix; the loss of control; and continual use. Johnson and VanVonderen (1991) define Religious Addiction as “the state of being dependent on a spiritually mood-altering system.” In a change intended to encourage mental health professionals to view patients’ religious experience more seriously, the DSM-IV included an entry entitled, “Religious or Spiritual Problem” (Steinfels 1994). One type of psycho-religious problem involves patients who intensify their adherence to religious practices to an obsessive-compulsive and sometimes delusional mental state of mind. I personally had the unique opportunity of writing my doctoral dissertation on religious addiction entitled, “Hawaii and Christian Religious Addiction.” During that process, I discovered a significant relationship between self-appointed, authoritarian church leaders and religious addictive beliefs, behaviors and symptoms (Slobodzien, 2004).
Likewise, Sexual Addiction affects an estimated three to six percent of the U.S. population. Sexual addiction takes many forms to include obsessions with pornography and masturbation to engaging in cyber-sex, voyeurism, affairs, rape, incest, and sex with strangers. Though solitary forms of this addiction may not be overtly risky, they can be part of a pattern of distorted thinking and identity conflict that can escalate to involve harming the self and others. An example of a Sexual Disorder (NOS) or Not Otherwise Specified in the DSM-IV-TR, (2000) includes: distress about a pattern of repeated sexual relationships involving a succession of lovers who are experienced by an individual only as things to be used. The defining elements of this kind of addiction are its secrecy and escalating nature, often resulting in diminished judgment and self-control (Carnes, 1994).
The fundamental nature of all addiction is the addicts’ experience of helplessness and powerlessness over an obsessive-compulsive behavior, resulting in their lives becoming unmanageable. The addict may be out of control. They may experience extreme emotional pain and shame. They may repeatedly fail to control their behavior. They may suffer one or more of the following consequences of an unmanageable lifestyle: a deterioration of some or all supportive relationships; difficulties with work, financial troubles; and physical, mental, and/ or emotional exhaustion which sometimes leads to psychiatric problems and hospitalization. Addictions tend to arise from the same backgrounds: families with co-dependency including multiple addictions; lack of effective parenting; and other forms of physical, emotional and sexual trauma in childhood. Since it is impossible to expect treatment for one addiction to be beneficial when other addictions co-exist, the initial therapeutic intervention for any addiction needs to include an assessment for other addictions.
Poly-behavioral dependence is the synergistically integrated chronic dependence on multiple physiologically addictive substances and behaviors (e.g., using/ abusing substances &ndash nicotine, alcohol, & drugs, and/ or acting impulsively or obsessively compulsive in regards to gambling, food binging, sex, and/ or religion, etc.) simultaneously.
For more info see: “Poly-Behavioral Addictions and the Addictions Recovery Measurement System”
.geocities.com/drslbdzn/Behavioral_Addictions.html
James Slobodzien, Psy.D., CSAC, is a Hawaii licensed psychologist and certified substance abuse counselor who earned his doctorate in Clinical Psychology. Dr. Slobodzien is credentialed by the National Registry of Health Service Providers in Psychology. He has over 20-years of mental health experience primarily working in the fields of alcohol/ substance abuse and behavioral addictions in hospital, prison, and court settings. He is an adjunct professor of Psychology and also maintains a private practice as a mental health consultant.
In my prior posting, entitled “Ancient Astronauts and Contemporary Skepticism,” I challenged the skeptics (assuming they do not want to acknowledge that the Nazca Lines were made to be viewed by an ancient astronaut) to provide a credible explanation of those geoglyphs. I argued that the people of Nazca cannot be considered unique in human history and that the skeptics need to find parallels elsewhere. However, I imagine that, instead of trying to produce a mundane explanation of the Nazca Lines, the skeptics could simply argue that I have not proven the contrary case.
The basic facts of the Nazca desert are easy to comprehend. Those large geoglyphs cannot be grasped by humans from the ground; in most cases, the hills or mountains are too distant for anyone to even notice that they are there. The figures on the ground can only be recognized from the air. Since humans were unable to fly until relatively recent times, it is logical to consider extraterrestrials as a potential explanation. I have seen skeptics, in desperation, argue that the people of Nazca, in the sixth century, knew how to make air balloons, but I do not believe it for one second.
For whom or for what did the people of Nazca make those ground drawings? Surely, they made those geoglyphs to be viewed by someone or something. That is unquestionable; it is not rational to believe that mass insanity could last the more than one hundred years it took to complete the project. If they made the geoglyphs to be viewed by an ancient astronaut, then where are their drawings of the ancient astronaut? Such drawings do exist. I provide one of them on my website, in a footnote to Gersiane De Brito’s “Tiwanaku Alien and Evolution” article. That picture is not a geoglyph, however; it comes from Nazca pottery, but the timing coincides. This makes sense. They likely thought it might be offensive to the alien to draw a picture of the alien on the ground so they only put it on the pottery, where the alien could not see it.
Beyond any doubt, the ancient astronaut depicted on the Nazca pottery is the same ancient astronaut depicted in the Tiwanaku engravings. In the Tiwanaku versions, the aquatic, alien nature of the creature is easier to spot. Also in Tiwanaku, with all that bird symbolism, it is apparent that this ancient astronaut could fly, freestyle, up and through the air.
Thus, the Nazca Lines have a viable explanation: the geoglyphs were made to be seen by an ancient astronaut that could fly like a bird with the aid of anti-gravity hand-held propulsion devices, without the use of aircraft or spacecraft of any kind. The people of Nazca drew diverse animal figures on the ground to attract the alien’s attention and to entertain it, and they drew lines and directional arrows on the ground to lead the alien back to the people of Nazca.
I think it time for the world’s scientists, archaeologists, anthropologists, psychologists, etcetera, to come to their senses and try to evaluate, objectively, the thinking behind the Nazca geoglyphs. The potential for uncovering an instance of genuine alien contact makes it a worthwhile endeavor.
2 years, 3 years, 6, 8, 12, 15, never, when do we start the process of introducing children to computers? Educators, parents, even gray-haired and learned professors cannot agree. The second question that then arises is whether computer based content positively or negatively affects the learning process. I can hear the screams of protest and support in full interactive, multi-media, broadband enhanced detail even as I write. Meanwhile millions of dollars are being spent to bring computers and the Internet to elementary schools around the globe. The only area all agree on, well maybe, is that all students should be taught how to use computers and the Internet eventually. As all will need an understanding of technology to enjoy the products of technology and in many cases within the future work environment. In this article I will try to summarize some of the arguments for and against technology in early education and finally to make a synopsis of how I believe we should address this vital issue. Firstly lets take a look at the arguments for early introduction.
Pros
Future Needs: The use of computers and an understanding of how to use the Internet are already critical to modern society today in manifest directions. These include, the work environment, information gathering for work orpleasure, shopping, communications etc. and if true today, how much moretomorrow. The Office of Occupational Statistics and Employment predicts thatthe computer industry will continue to show the greatest growth of any industry in the USA. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), more than half of all workers used a computer on the job in September 2001. And nearly three-fourths of those workers connected to the Internet or used e-mail.
Early Skills Acquisition: As with all fundamental skills, the earlier the education system allows students to become familiar with technology the greater will be their depth of understanding and effectiveness in using it. It is immaterial to argue that skills acquired today by a five year old will not be relevant later in life because technology will develop beyond comprehension. This is because skills acquired can focus on an understanding of what computers can do rather than just how to interact with today’s computers. In addition, once the initial ground work has been obtained the potential for adaptation to a dynamic system can be incrementally updated in the same way as adults have to adapt to new technology.
Personalization: Computer based content allows a level of individual engagement and interactivity that comparative learning systems fail to deliver. By its nature learning with the computer is a one-on-one experience or at worst, small groups. This alleviates the paradigm of large classes with minimal personal intervention.
Learning Levels: Computers allow users to individualize their speed of attainment to suite their personal needs and capabilities. The speedy are not held back and those that need greater repetition are not passed over. Additionally special groupings can be more easily and effectively catered for.
Wide Distribution of Quality Teaching: Computer based learning allows the maximum effectiveness and distribution of the best quality teaching and content. A great teacher is not limited by the classroom but can reach out across the Internet to thousands either through building digital lessons or distance learning software and programs. Most distance learning systems today can be configured as live broadcasts with high levels of interactivity with the teacher. Now, here are the equally strong arguments against.
Con’s
Accessibility and Suitability: If an individual does not have access to a computer or does not understand the content through a language deficiency or cultural differences, they will be relegated to the digitally divided, 44 million at the last count just in the USA according to Professor Howard Besser, The Next Digital Divides.
Interfering with Natural Development: Young children should be utilizingtheir natural propensity for physically based activity rather than be ‘stuck’ infront of a computer. They already spend damaging amounts of time glued to televisions, as researchers have discovered, that impairs development. Our children, the Surgeon General warns, are the most sedentary generation ever.
Lack of Depth: Computer based content is a long way from offering the depth, flexibility and tried and tested results that a trained, dedicated and experienced teacher can offer children. In addition, the interaction with a sophisticated adult allows critical advanced vocabulary and personalization skills.
Quality of Content: Most digital content is overly simplistic in its structure. For example, a sum can only be wrong or right. The content will not explain to the student why the sum was wrong. A real teacher will mark a piece of work and offer the essential logic reasoning for the decision that will enable the student to gain a fundamental understanding of the system behind what constitutes correct/incorrect.
Health Hazards: Computers pose health hazards to children. The risks include repetitive stress injuries, eyestrain, obesity, social isolation, and, forsome, long-term physical, emotional, or intellectual developmental damage.
Safety: Children must be protected from the dangers of the Internet, stalkers, adult content, hate and violence. Filtering software is notoriously inefficient.
By no means am I attempting to articulate all the arguments or cover them inreal depth but just to raise some of the issues we all face. In my opinion both the Pros and Cons are very strong arguments all of which need serious consideration and answers.
Now to put this in to an importance perspective, digital technology is invading virtually every aspect of modern society and its impact is becoming fundamental to how we work, play and learn. Technology within education also has a huge role to play but its’ effectiveness and impact has not been studied in the depth and breadth that such a fundamental development requires.
In the work environment, mistakes in the use of technology are paid for inmonetary terms. How much less can we afford to make mistakes with introducing technology to our children, mistakes made here cost far more than damaged business, with education we are talking damaged lives. At the moment we just seem to be ‘throwing’ computers and the Internet at teachers and children, as I state above, without any real understanding of what we are actually doing to the children or should I call them ‘guinea pigs’.
The logic seems to be, at least on the governmental level, that we cannot afford for the coming generation not to be computer enabled, as this ability will be critical for a country to be economically competitive. In fact every country is being driven to ensure it’s digital competitiveness. At a governmental level this logic is difficult to fault but it is our job as educators and parents to ensure thatthe effectiveness of the headlong plunge is in the best interests of all the children.
My opinion is that large-scale research in to the issues needs to be carried out. Not on the scale of a few dozen subjects over weeks as many examples of current research do, but thousands or even tens of thousands of subjects over years.
These subjects need to be from 2 years to 8 years old. They need to bewidely dispersed geographically. Come from all levels of the social andattainment spectrum. In fact technology and the Internet is a perfect platform to carry out this type of research. I founded the Internet based Kindersite Project to enable researchers to accomplish this type of wide-scale program.
I believe that only significant research that studies thousands of subjectchildren over a long-term, years probably, will allow the educational community to really gain full and meaningful answers to the questions such as:
Does the early introduction of digital content positively or negatively affectyoung children?
What should be the parameters of the introduction (if any)?
What content types should be employed within the introductory process?
What constitutes ‘good’ or ‘bad’ content and why?
What parameters define ‘good’ or ‘bad’ content?
As a result of sustained and profound research, guidelines should be drawn. These guidelines should offer teachers and parents tried and tested parameters for the use of computers for their children at each age level. It should include areas such as; how long should a child use a computer over a period, maximum and minimum attainment levels to be expected for each age group based on set proficiency standards, how digital content should be integrated in to standard lesson plans in a similar way that other media isused.
Most importantly, set standards for educational content providers must be laid down that they must adhere to if they wish to produce educational content utilizable by educationalists.
In addition all young childrens’ content, educational or leisure should be labeled with its appropriateness for each age group. These standards should be defined by the research.
In conclusion, it is fairly obvious that computer based educational content is becoming a feature of schools, whether we like it or not. In the home we see increasing evidence that even the smallest children are gaining access to computers either with parents or through watching older siblings. It is unreasonable to expect to turn back the clock and bar children below a certain age from computers, this is unenforceable and ineffective.
It is our duty to ensure that clear usage standards are set, content guidelines are drawn and sites rated at a governmental level so that children, parents, caregivers and educators have a clear and safe basis for using computers and the Internet with their charges. Anything less is an abrogation of all our responsibility.