Doc and Chaps: Normalizing Psychology and Implementing Prevention Strategies

I've noticed quite a few articles that talk about prevention (including the first two articles for my positive psych class) and also trying to spread the word that psychology is not "just for crazies." But how do we do this?

The real life attempts I've seen have been interesting. Mental health fairs, talking posts, and advertising campaigns involving posters with a simple message: anyone can go to a therapist. But if you search for these terms, you'll see a lot about "awareness" themes focusing a lot on suicide and depression, or even just everyday stress. But these topics (while absolutely relevant and important) are the very reasons why the general public get scared away from us! 

Think of all the reasons why people don't want to see a therapist: 

• Freud. He is popularly known as a perverted psycho. While this may or may not be true, this is how a lot of people still see psychotherapy as a whole. They don't want to lay down on our couches and talk about how they want to bone their mother. That's just weird.*
• Avoidance. People spend a good portion of their lives trying not to think about sad or scary things. And, since this is what people think therapists are for, they try to avoid them. It's not necessarily healthy, but you can see where they are coming from, right?
• Misinformation. I'm sure that, if you are in the field of psychology or have told friends and family that that is what you are studying, someone, at some point in time, has asked you if you can analyze them or asked if you can read their mind. They feel like you are going to start probing their thoughts or some other crazy stuff (that would make therapy a lot easier, I bet). 
• Finally, a big part of it is that people feel like if they are associated with a therapist, they will be judged. A big movie trope is the lunatic who starts a date off with, "well, my therapist said..."

How can we change this?

Well, my first thought goes to the Navy, and the stark contrast between Naval physicians and chaplains versus the psychologists. "Doc" and "Chaps" were like local rock stars: they would walk around high-fiving, fist-bumping, telling jokes; even in their intimidating officer uniforms, you felt safe talking to them. When they just acknowledged your existence you felt special. But the psychologists, uniforms or no, hunkered down in their offices. They were stiff and uninviting, and if you had to go see them, it was usually because you were in trouble. 

So:

What if we took this route? In schools and colleges and even in larger workplaces, have a different kind of "Doc" running around? Obviously, they wouldn't be seeing patients all the time, but they would be a kind of "ambassador," if you will, to the rest of the psych department. Someone to monitor morale and spread the word about these "mental health fairs" and "talking posts." But they wouldn't have to focus just on mental health, either. They could be the ones to announce different club meetings (at schools) and occasionally hand out treats, or whatever. 

The only real drawback I see is if this person can't be seen as genuine. If it's too forced, it'll be obvious; introduction of this person would have to be slow. But I think if this idea is implemented all over the country (even the world, really), psychology as both a means for healing and for prevention could truly benefit. 

What do you think?

*Not judging, just sayin'.

Article #2 - Thoughts and Questions, et cetera...

Howdy folks! It is time for round two of "What is Positive Psychology?"

Last time, I gave a bare bones summary about both articles that were supposed to be read for week one, then wrote a bit about the first article until my eyes bled (obviously not in a literal way, but that's how it felt). Now it is time for article two, "Positive psychology: An introduction" (already sourced in the previous post).

This, by the way, is still a part of the "catch-up post," and does not entirely reflect my vision for this blog. Time is a precious commodity, and I do have deadlines to meet! :)

My take on the article and my notes and questions:

This article seems to have been an introduction not just to positive psychology, but to that particular issue of American Psychologist. It has a lot of name-dropping and summaries on individual studies/articles of the past, and all-in-all seems to focus more on what psychology as a whole lacks and how positive psychology will fill that void.
Interestingly enough, for an introduction to positive psychology it is a bit on the negative side. For example:

In the first sentence of the article, it talks about preventing pathologies "that arise when life is barren and meaningless" (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000).

"Don't you mean, perceived as barren and meaningless?"
To say it any other way implies that people with meaningful lives simply cannot develop mental illness, and while I believe (and evidence suggests) that meaning in one's life can help to prevent or lessen mental illness, it still happens. Or am I just wrong about this?

Beyond this article's negative tone (though I will mention it again in a bit), there is also an odd attitude toward positive emotions and qualities that I honestly had no idea still prevailed in the field. Positive features of life (courage, hope, wisdom, etc.) are explained as "transformations of more authentic negative impulses."

"So...wait. Isn't this just Freud's 'sublimation?' Besides in a historical context, who cares about Freud anymore?"
Not to hate on the man or on psychoanalytical theory in general, but the idea that we paint and stuff because we can't go out and rape each other is kinda ridiculous.

"thriving communities" and "individuals are the authors of their own evolution"
Nothing of note here--these phrases just make me happy!

Another point mentioned was that people do things to feel alive. However, my thought is that they should. I have a feeling that this is not always the case, otherwise spreading the word about prevention and positive psych as a whole would not be necessary...right? And it's funny, because when I think of "prevention" I think about hand-washing. I can see why they have reminders to do so in bathrooms everywhere: it is an inconvenience. It's not particularly pleasurable (though if I don't I just feel gross), so we are not necessarily predisposed to washing our hands all the time, unless it is simply a habit. Doing things to feel alive, however...not doing them is a symptom of mental illness in of itself. I don't know, seems strange to me. (And is probably something I'm going to write about at a later date.)

A problem I have with a section of this article: it doesn't right out say that realism is pessimism, but definitely implies it. The quote:
"What is the relationship between positive traits like optimism...on the one hand, and being realistic on the other?" then, "Many doubt the possibility of being both."
...what? Does this mean there are a lot of educated people out there who really believe you cannot be both optimistic and realistic? Have they never heard the term, "optimistically realistic?" Or am I just reading this incorrectly?

Finally, the authors go on to say, "Is the world simply too full of tragedy to allow a wise person to be happy?"

My response: It is if you put it like that. I'm pretty sure that's just confirmation bias. If you are going to label the world as tragic, then you are throwing objectivity out the window. The same applied if you start with the idea that the world is beautiful, too; so don't go celebrating yet, you hippies. I'm just kidding, but seriously: that's why psychology is a science. Objectivity in observation, measurement, comparison, and deductions. If you don't like that, I have some snake oil to sell you!

Anyway, aside from my objections, I really do like the concept of positive psychology. Do you have any thoughts? Corrections? Objections to what I've said?

~[insert ridiculous-sounding goodbye here]!

Next up: Doc and Chaps, or Normalizing psychology and implementing prevention strategies. 

Catch-up Post: What is Positive Psychology?

Note: This is a post catching this blog up to the current week in positive psychology since I did not actually start posting until yesterday.

Our readings for last week included:

Gable, S. L., & Haidt, J. (2005). What (and why) is positive psychology? Review of General Psychology, 9, 103-110.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5-14.


A bare-bones summary:

Psychology tends to focus on what takes a person from "negative eight to zero but not...how people rise from zero to positive eight" (Gable & Haidt, 2005). That zero to positive eight part is what positive psychology is all about.

The articles also shed some light on some historical things about psychology, such as how World War II shifted psychology's focus from three major realms (pathology, talent, and how to develop a productive and fulfilling life), to just one: curing mental illness.

And then the last article highlights several other articles that touch upon different facets of positive psychology as a sort of introduction to the rest of that particular American Psychologist issue.

My take on the first article and my notes/questions: 
(This part is more of what I was planning for this blog/journal...thing.)

The first article was really just a nice summary of exactly what the title says. Positive psychology seems like a really interesting topic to me, as I really do think that this could be really important for the majority of people out there (assuming that my statistics for prevalence of mental illness is correct). Not everyone is suffering from something, but everyone alive right now is, in fact, dealing with being alive. However, I am one of those who have had bouts of mental illness; so my first question I had while reading was:

"Can the same things that bring someone from -8 to 0, also bring someone from 0 to +8? (and/or vise versa?)"
CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy, for those who don't know) helps to challenge thinking distortions no matter how minor; does a "0" or above have thinking distortions, or does this disqualify them, making them like a -1 or something? And, if it does disqualify them:

"Just how stable is mental health?"
This is more a pathology sort of thing. I suppose that it all comes back down to how we diagnose psychological problems--such as depression needing to be prevalent for two weeks or longer--right? So if this is the case, then those "slips" of the mind (such as a day-long bad mood or a one-off hallucination of someone calling our name) could be compared to just "feeling off" or a 24-hour bug in physiological terms, whereas major depression disorder would be like being infected with the coronavirus, and schizophrenia would be like having a more chronic disease, such as crohn's.
After reading a little more about how current psychology is lacking, the first article mentions that we've studied a lot about how families resolve conflicts, but "very few studies [that examine] them having fun and laughing together" (2005). So then, my next question:

"How would you operationalize this scenario?"
I only just got out of the research methods class, so being more aware of the challenges involved with setting up studies has me generating questions such as this. How do you measure "laughing?" Other aspects of positive psychology mentioned in the first article are awe, curiosity, and love. There were many more, but these in particular leave me wondering how one could study these other than just describing what one observes.
This isn't really a question, but I like the mention of personality types. Norem and Chang (2001) pointed out that there are people with a "defensive pessimism personality style." These people are exactly how they sound: pessimistic with the intent of defending themselves against unrealistically positive expectations, and that they should not be encouraged to just abandon this line of thinking.

This article is obviously introductory, and the depth of my questions and observations are limited by that as well as my lack of knowledge on this topic as a whole. However, as will always be the case, I encourage anyone who might have more questions or any kind of insight to speak up! I am always up for discussion, correction, and feedback.

~Happy trails!

Next up: Article #2--thoughts and questions.

An "Academic Journal"

This semester I am supposed to be keeping an "academic journal" for my Positive Psychology class. I also wanted to start a blog right around the same time. One thing led to the other, and now I've decided to combine the two.

Don't worry, though: this is not your everyday, "today I learned this...." Psychology and Coffee is still a creative outlet for me, so I hope to be much more stimulating than that. I also very much encourage anyone and everyone to participate. Discussion is what drives constructive thought, and I'm just itching to get involved with a more professional community, even if it means having to learn by occasionally making a fool of myself.

As for a publishing schedule, I plan to submit something at least once a week, but I'll write more depending on what's happening.

For more info on this, check out the appropriate page.