Darrin L Rogers

His staff say nobody told them why there was any need for the funds. The people asking for the funds, on the other hand, gave a pretty believable account that they did, indeed, and very specifically, make the need clear. I’m inclined to believe the crisis center folks, of course.

Keep it classy, Florida.

Here’s the link.

Visiting from UTPA? Interested in the interpersonal relationship skills discussion groups? Sadly, this opportunity is now over. We are done recruiting, and we do not plan to recruit any other students. If you are not currently in one of the discussion groups, you will not be called for one. Thanks for your interest.

I’ve just been reading “Blackout/All Clear,” by one of my favorite authors, Connie Willis. There’s a moment when someone recites the St. Crispin’s Day speech from Henry V. It always makes me feel all proud and choked up, though I have never been in any military-type “band of brothers.” It made me think about the stereotyped emotional reactions (let’s call them SERs) that many (most?) subgroups of humans have to certain social situations. I see many of them in daily life. Here are a few:

• Sexual arousal when we see hotties (however that’s defined for each of us)
• Indignation when we hear about powerful individuals abusing less powerful ones
• Anger or defensiveness when we perceive a threat  (the ANS “fight or flight” response)
• Tenderness or protectiveness when we see children (as long as they’re not being monsters

And many more. Obviously, these SERs seem to have cultural, and perhaps biological/evolutionary, usefulness: they help us reproduce effectively, minimize social ills, protect our loved ones and our lives, and shepherd our vulnerable young toward independence. This perspective is well established in anthropology, social psychology and evolutionary psychology. We also seem to collectively understand that many of these emotional reactions must be moderated — we should often fail to act on them, or at least control the way we act. For instance, most of us would agree that it’s a bad idea to react to every sexual impulse we have; and clients of anger management programs and anxiety-disorder therapy alike work to rein in their fight-or-flight responses.  We recognize that these emotional reactions can be misguided — we can be tricked by our biological and cultural predispositions into doing something that is not truly a good response to the situation. We are taught, and we teach our children, to carefully manage how we react to many of these situations. Perhaps I could call that, for the moment, the correction for stereotyped emotional reactions (CSER; see how I just made up that acronym out of nowhere? That’s what we academics are trained to do).

So, finally, we’re at the questionably deep thought of the day (QDTD): why do so many of us  (I’m especially talking about 21st Century Americans) seem to think that some of these knee-jerk reactions should be immune from the CSER–there should be no correction. Specifically, I suspect that many people in the US would be confused or even upset if someone were to suggest that it is not a good idea to swell with military/patriotic pride (the “band of brothers” response from the beginning of this post) every time a leader gives some version of the St. Crispin’s Day speech. Those same people would, however, probably agree that not all sexual impulses should be acted upon, and that we should not join riots whenever we feel like it. This “exception” from any CSER to military/patriotic emotional responses (and probably other categories) obviously serves some political agendas, but I don’t think that alone can explain why it happens. I think progressives/liberals, who generally want to think carefully about wars, if not avoid all of them, do have a CSER to this type of stimuli, but I feel that many public progressives are tentative about suggesting that others should examine their emotional responses–perhaps because they feel that this suggestion would be unpopular.

I found this article about placebos kind of charming. Placebo elevator buttons (I knew it!) and placebo “walk” buttons at intersections (I suspected it!). But I wonder: is this really the placebo effect? Shouldn’t a true placebo somehow provide part of the benefit that the real thing is supposed to give? Placebo ≠ faking it.

Placebos via Slashdot

Having heard UTPA Mariachi perform, I can attest that they are awesome. The harmonies are tight, the vocals are bold and rich, and the instrumentation is gorgeous. So, imagine my surprise to see them turn up at the White House!

Come to think of it, perhaps that’s why the Tea Party won all those congressional seats. Perhaps the Mariachi distracted President Obama.

This morning, I got an email that seemed initially to confirm my most secret suspicions about the pedantry and insecure elitism of the professional organization to which I belong. It called for a vote on whether we should start pronouncing the “p” in “psychology.” Then, according to the email, “…how you pronounce psychology will be like a badge of loyalty: are you a scientist, or are you… something else?” There was also a jab at “other organizations” who would continue to leave the “p” silent.

Well, coming as this did from the APS, who have at times behaved like the punky kid with a chip on his shoulder at the birthday party, it was just barely believable.

Until I got to the part that suggested that, with the trend toward phoenetic pronunciation of English words, “psychology” may soon be spelled “sykolojy,” with the result that “Our acronym would then become ASS. Nobody wants that.”

And then, finally, I checked the date on the email.

I made a jpeg (below). Click for full-size.

A recent… ah… lively discussion on the APA [EARLYCAREER] listserv — prompted by a member’s marketing for her Mary Kay business — prompted a number of interesting and sometimes quite thoughtful responses. Here’s my favorite, from someone named “Michael”:

Hello all,

Speaking for myself, I’ve been by turns fascinated, angered, and frightened by the recent conversations here. But rather than focusing on the opprobrium, I think its probably important here to take a moment to reflect on the anxiety aroused by the recent horror stories posted here. In addition I’m supposing that many of us had a negative reaction to the “Mary Kay” posting as it seemed to violate the boundaries of what we consider to be our profession. However, in the context of the previous discussions, the strength of the feelings got me thinking. I find myself wondering if part of the moralizing reaction has something to do with the discomfort generated by the ways in which we view ourselves. Are we business people? Scientists? Medical professionals? Artists?

Most of us are quite bright, and could have been anything we wanted. Somehow, though, it seems as though we’ve payed handsomely to enter a profession where we must be everything. Of little help is the discomfort fomented by the exclusionary philosophical rivalries that exist in our discipline based upon the sturm und drang of our struggle for legitimacy in the public eye. Of course, besides what we give up during our years of training, it cannot be forgotten that we sacrifice so much of who we were to become, well, whatever it is we are. But beyond these concerns I can’t help but have the impression perhaps some of the anger is more about this confusion than anything else.

That hit me deep down. Yes, I could have done a number of things (certainly not anything) with my life, but I’m doing this: clinical psychology. I like the fact that my field allows me to wear a lot of hats. But it certainly makes for some interesting questions of identity, and when identity is threatened most people start behaving very weirdly.

Hello. This is my website (obviously). Right now, there’s not much here except some links for my students to download content in case they can’t access Blackboard. Click on the link on the left that has your class name in it, to go to the page with the downloads.