Tag Archives: objectivity

Are You Afflicted with Pareidolia?

General and Miscellaneous, Subjectivity and Objectivity, , , , ,

Have you ever gazed up at the clouds and found human, animal, or mythological images, whether full-bodied or just facial, in them? If so, chances are that you have a condition known as pareidolia.  For further assessment, though, take a look at the following figures:

What does this look like to you?

And this? What do you see here?

What do you see here?

How about this? Does this look like anything to you? 

What sort of images do you see in these splotches of ink? Animal, vegetable, or mineral? Or perhaps human, mythological, or extra-terrestial? Or maybe landscapes or seascapes?

Then again, you may only see them as blotches of ink – symmetrical, yes, but without any particular patterns or images embedded in them. If so, then you probably don’t have pareidolia, which is the tendency to see meaningful objects, human, animate, or otherwise, in ambiguous or random visual stimuli.

If you did see objects or meaningful images, you don’t need to be alarmed. Pareidolia is a normal condition that affects most people. It mainly causes problems when we have trouble distinguishing what is real from what is illusion. There are times when this condition can cause serious problems. These include visual hallucinations and drug-induced visions, such as a bad LSD trip. Here, the issue is more a matter of impaired reality testing than of the illusory experiences themselves.

In fact, pareidolia can be adaptive and beneficial. In the event of crises, recognizing danger in a split second can be the difference between life and death. Misperceiving an object as threatening is usually less risky than failure to recognize a real menace. Better to be safe than sorry! Pareidolia offers an advantage in evolutionary terms. Activating the fight-or-flight response quickly allows one to live and procreate another day.

Pareidolia and Psychological Projective Assessment

You may be aware that psychologists have used the pareidolia response as a projective technique for personality assessment. Interpretations are based on the variations in what people read into the ambiguous stimuli. Psychologists and psychiatrists having found that differences in these responses on the test instruments reflect more general differences in daily experiences and behavior.

Use of Pareidolia in the Clinical Case Study

Clinicians initially developed their use of pareidolia as a projective technique informally, through clinical case studies. They used their own particular theoretical perspectives to analyze their patients’ response patterns to the ambiguous stimuli,  which they extrapolated to explain the psychological processes in daily life.  They used their clinical intuition to integrate the considerable detail offered by the case studies, yet the theory determined what data was considered relevant, such that such an exploration and interpretation could hardly be considered objective and unbiased.

Use of Pareidolia in the Experimental Research Design

Subsequent experimental researchers questioned the scientific rigor of the case study approach, which they considered anecdotal.  In effect, they were accusing the traditional clinicians of a process similar to the pareidolic activity of their subjects (i.e., reading meaning into subjective and ambiguous data without having objective verification). The experimental researchers such as John Exner undertook the challenge of testing the various hypotheses which the clinicians had proposed, but not proven objectively. This endeavor resulted in validation for some hypotheses but not for others. The findings were often in rather general terms, in contrast to the clinicians’ more specific interpretations derived  from their intuitive analysis of the case studies.

Objective Personality Assessment

Regardless of whether the diagnostic approach involved clinical case studies or more rigorous experimental designs, the psychological interpretations used  rather technical and abstract concepts to describe psychological functioning.  This approach, with its appeal to objective science for its legitimacy, has a rather sterile, reductionistic flavor, particularly when contrasted with a more literary or humanistic approach to portraying life’s existential challenges. (Perhaps this is a major reason why psychiatrists and psychologists are often referred to as “shrinks.”)

Inkblots as a Trigger for Pareidolia

The Rorschach inkblots, a series of ten cards, is the most familiar of the various projective techniques. As with the other assessment instruments, researchers have conducted extensive research on how the pareidolic responses to the inkblots are related to more general styles of personality, and can thereby serve as indicators of these styles.  Thus, these inkblots serve the objective analysis of human experience and behavior.

An Alternative Approach to Inkblot Interpretation

The inkblots shared in this post are not from the Rorschach set. Nor have there been any studies to establish the frequency of the various pareidolic responses to each of these figures. Thus, they have no current value as an objective technique to analyze the psychological processes of persons responding to these designs.

The absence of this scientific framework leaves an opening for an alternative approach – namely, a subjective exploration of the personal experience of encountering these ambiguous stimuli. Granted, it does not offer the certitude of pronouncements based on scientific objectivity. Yet I would suggest that this limitation is overshadowed by the depth of rich, subjective experience that it offers.

Rediscovering the Subjectivity of Experience

Rather than “shrinking” personal experience through objective analysis, this exercise can be mind-expanding in its appreciation of the ambiguities of the human condition. This is a topic which I explored in my article, Muddling Down a Middle Path: Wading through the Messiness of Life. By sharing our own personal responses to these inkblots, without the choke of objective analysis constricting our experience or censoring our sharing, we offer one another and ourselves windows into our psyches. And if that is too lofty of an aspiration for this exercise, well, we might just have some fun with it, as play feeds off of ambiguity.

But don’t take my word for it – try it, and see what happens. And don’t stop with your images – consider your thoughts, feelings, attitudes, and associations to the images. And if you dare, share your experiences with your friends, and see where it leads.

Here are a couple more inkblots to pareidolate. (I’m not sure that’s a real word – I’ve been known to neologize.) I’d be glad to hear back from you on your experiences.

What do you see here?
And here?
Do you have different reactions to these two versions? If so, how?

Your reaction to this blot?

Cognitive Behaviorism: An Abridged History – 2.0

Cognitive Behaviorism, Paradoxes in Everyday Life, Subjectivity and Objectivity, , , , , , ,

For years, cognitive behaviorism has been the self-proclaimed leader in psychotherapy, citing numerous studies to back that claim. That approach has touted its superior effectiveness in treating a variety of mental disorders. Its list of “evidence-based” applications has grown so broad that you’d think it’d cure all that ails you. Like other movements, it has tended to overreach its utility by trying to be all things to all people. In the words of a folksy adage, “When your only tool is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.”

Putting Cognitive Behaviorism in Perspective

We can gain perspective, though, by placing cognitive behaviorism in its historical and cultural context. In doing so, we can better appreciate both its promises and its limitations in resolving particular problems of living. This exploration will allow cognitive behaviorism to assume its rightful place among other approaches to life’s adversities. We can then see this therapeutic model as but one set of tools in the tool chest. This perspective will then allow us to apply its strategies and techniques to the appropriate situations. Likewise, we can expect to find that other therapeutic approaches are more relevant for other circumstances.

The Broader Historical Context

Cognitive behaviorism is, first of all, a product of Western civilization. As such, it inherited a perspective that evolved out of the Renaissance and the later Industrial Revolution. This orientation ushered in a philosophical  inquiry into how we know anything with any certainty. This laid the groundwork for logical empiricism as the basis of the scientific method. That particular ideology viewed the application of logic to observable data as the basic path to knowledge. Within psychology, the school of behaviorism embraced that philosophy to guide its research and practice. This is a rather abbreviated outline of a centuries-long process, and the following sections will flesh this out.

The Rise of the Scientific Perspective

With the Renaissance and the later Industrial Revolution, Western culture shifted from a faith-based to a science-based view of reality. In doing so, our civilization has exhibited a bias toward the scientific objectivity that has fostered unprecedented advances in science and technology over the past 500 years. This perspective questioned the assumptions of the older world view, including the belief in an omniscient and omnipotent Being running the show. It even called into question the reality of our own existence. In the 17th Century, Rene Descartes proposed a logical proof of our existence, declaring, “cogito, ergo sum.” (“I think, therefore I am”). Later philosophical thought gave primacy to the objective perspective by viewing rationality as the arbiter of factual certainty.

Toward Logical Empiricism

Philosophical inquiry became focused on understanding the path to knowledge (i.e., epistemology, as it is known in philosophy). Thus, it is more of a philosophy of science, rather than a broader philosophy of life. Within this movement arose branches of rationalism, empiricism, and skepticism, all embracing objective perspectives on reality. Logical empiricism took this outlook on knowing to its natural conclusion. This school views knowledge as being accrued through applying principles of logic to shared sensory experience. Thus, private personal experiences are not to be trusted, as they cannot be validated by others. Well, so much for introspection! And metaphysical constructs? Logical empiricists considered these non-sensory (and perhaps nonsense?), and thus unworthy subjects for philosophical or scientific analysis.

The Emergence of Psychology as a Scientific Discipline

During the Industrial Age, psychology emerged from its philosophical roots to proclaim its legitimacy as a scientific pursuit. In 1879, Wilhelm Wundt established the first psychological laboratory, in Leipzig, Germany. He and his followers pursued the methodical study of human experience, including sensations, thoughts, feelings, and memories. Subsequent psychological research further developed an experimental approach to the pursuit of knowledge. This trend culminated with the American Psychological Association adopted the Scientist-Practitioner model in 1949. They thus formalized science as the basis of applied psychologists’ practice. This meant that scientific research was to provide the foundation for clinical psychologists providing psychotherapy and psychological assessment.

Experimental Research vs. Case Study

Thus, the methodology of experimental psychology came to overshadow the more subjective case study approach. In the process, the objectively-oriented psychologists viewed the insights attained from case studies as mere anecdotal evidence. At best, psychologists viewed these as a source of hypotheses to be tested in more formal experiments. In this way, objective data replaced clinical intuitions as the gold standard for psychological knowledge. Psychotherapy came to be viewed as an application of scientific knowledge, rather than a healing art. Psychologists devised controlled experimental designs to establish that a particular therapeutic approach meets the “evidence-based” standard for efficacy. This emphasis on objectivity has largely relegated the more subjective exploration of the complexities of the human condition to the arts and humanities.

The Rise of Behaviorism in Psychology

From within the broad discipline of psychology emerged the school of behaviorism, with its more stringent research standards. This branch found guidance through its strict adherence to the tenets of the logical empiricism. In particular, it viewed knowledge as accruing through applying principles of logic to shared sensory experience. According to this standard, the earlier introspective methods of Wundt and Tichener were dismissed as objectively unverifiable. That is, the researchers could record, but not validate, their subjects’ report of private experiences. (This is by definition, because if it could be verified, the experience would no longer be considered private).

The Black Box of Private Experience

The strict behaviorists proclaimed that data without external validation was neither reliable nor meaningful. They considered the mind as a “black box,” concealing its contents and providing no real explanations. The behaviorists considered only the subjects’ observable behaviors legitimate targets for investigation. This methodology excluded private experience (i.e., thoughts, feelings, sensations, memories, and associations) from study. Within this constraint, behavioral psychology adopted a cause-and-effect analysis of the relationship between the environment and the behavior. In learning theory, behaviorists view behaviors as conditioned responses to external stimulus situations and reinforcement histories. Note how all these factors can be witnessed directly and consensually validated.

Enter the Cognitive Behaviorists

The cognitive behaviorists, though, reintroduced one type of private experience, cognitions, as a legitimate object of inquiry. They challenged the behaviorists’ suspicions about the validity of private experience by assuming that their subjects were reporting the truth. The “truth,” though, had one major qualification. That is, cognitive behaviorists assumed the subjects’ were reporting their own truths. These were descriptions of their own private thoughts and beliefs, even if not objectively true. Thus, cognitive behaviorists could count their subjects’ self-report of  experiences as publicly verifiable, even if their experiences weren’t.

Irrational Personal Truths

In fact, the cognitive behaviorist based their therapy on the discrepancy between their clients’ personal truths and objective reality. With public consensus defining this reality, beliefs contrary to this shared reality were considered irrational. Therapists adopting this approach proposed that their clients’ irrational beliefs were causing them emotional distress. Thus, cognitive behaviorists opened up the “black box” of the mind to rediscover the inner life that had been ignored or rejected as irrelevant. In doing so, they fudged on the strict empiricism of the radical behaviorists and the earlier logical empiricists. They still retained an objective bias by focusing on the issue of rationality in their clients’ beliefs, rather than paying comparable attention to the more subjective memories, emotions, sensations, or perceptions.

Objectivity over Subjectivity

Even with its acceptance of private experiences as a legitimate object of study, cognitive behaviorism remained true to logical empiricism’s vision of knowledge. That is, it viewed knowledge as being attained through applying logic to shared sensory experience. In assuming this approach, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) was extending the challenge that the Age of Reason had posed to the Age of Faith from the broad cultural level down to the individual level. In this case, rather than challenging the dogmas of religion, as Copernicus and Galileo had done in displacing the earth from the center of the universe, cognitive behaviorists were analyzing and challenging the idiosyncratic belief systems of the various individuals seeking their aid and counsel.

Humans Viewed as “Naive Scientists”

An early pioneer in cognitive behaviorism, George Kelly, presented a view of individuals as “naive scientists” who develop and test the validity of their belief systems about their world. This tenet served as a foundation for the cognitive behavioral therapies later developed by Aaron Beck, Albert Ellis, and others. Counselors and therapists using this approach judged the validity of their clients’ beliefs by the same standards of logical empiricism that they used in their own scientific research.

Cognitive Behaviorism and Freudian Psychoanalysis

A contextual review of cognitive behaviorism would be incomplete without reference to Freudian psychoanalysis. This earlier model of psychotherapy had upset Victorian sensibilities by addressing human sexuality as central to the human condition. Behaviorism did not challenge Freudian theory for its emphasis on sexuality per se. Rather, it challenged its use of various metaphysical constructs (e.g., libido, the Oedipus complex, the death instinct, the unconscious). Behaviorists argued that these concepts were so removed from sensory experience that they could be neither proven nor refuted. Thus, behaviorism did not actually disprove Freudian psychodynamics. Rather. it moved to dismiss the case on procedural grounds. Namely, behaviorists argued that the intangible Freudian concepts lacked the observability required by logical empiricism. In this way, cognitive behaviorism was able to dismiss the animal nature in humans without “getting its hands dirty.”

The Problem of Emotional Distress

That still left the realm of the emotions to address. since clients were seeking therapy, not to correct their irrational beliefs, but rather to alleviate their emotional pain and suffering. While the Freudian psychodynamic model views distressing emotions as a manifestation of frustrated instinctual drives, cognitive behaviorism considers these feelings more as byproducts of irrational belief systems.

Beyond Cognitive Behaviorism

Behaviorism has since evolved beyond the pure cognitive behavioral model in what has been characterized as the “third wave” of behaviorism. These newer approaches have delved further into the “black box” of the mind. Marsha Linehan’s dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT), Stephen Hayes’ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), and Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) have all expanded their scope beyond the narrow focus on thoughts through the analytic lens of rationality.

An Eastern Influence

These behavioral schools have drawn upon Eastern influences in developing the practice of mindfulness as cornerstones of their approaches. DBT and ACT have also deviated from behaviorism’s logical empirical foundations by addressing values and emotions. For example, they have espoused a paradoxical juxtaposition of acceptance of the current situation and commitment to change. Both of these approaches seek to cultivate a tolerance for normal suffering by incorporating the Buddhist principles of the Four Noble Truths into their perspective and practice. This contrasts with CBT’s reliance upon logical analysis to temper, if not eliminate, the negative emotions associated with the irrational beliefs.

Venturing into Subjectivity

With ACT, the challenges to the clients’ dysfunctional outlooks on life are conveyed not just through the objective lens of logic, but also through the subjectivity of analogy and metaphor. With such significant departures from the philosophical underpinnings of behaviorism, this “third wave” of behaviorism actually appears to be more of a hybrid of behavioral and experiential approaches to psychology, rather than simply an evolved behaviorism.

The Further Modification of Behaviorism

Even with these deviations from behavioral orthodoxy, the cognitive behavioral establishment has not declared these “third wave” approaches heretical. Rather, traditional cognitive behaviorists have tolerated the reformed schools and even introduced mindfulness techniques into their own practice. Traditional CBT has tended to import the techniques without incorporating the underlying principles that have supported these practices through the centuries. Such modifications strike me as akin to morphing an elephant’s trunk onto a horse: there just doesn’t appear to be a smooth integration.

An Alternative Perspective: The Way of Paradox

Now, where am I going with this review? What’s my angle? You might note my domain name is roguepsychologist, and wonder what I am up to. And you would be quite right! By placing a school of thought within a cultural context, we recognize its relativity. It takes its place among various perspectives. We can then compare the perspectives, thus revealing their limitations as well as their strengths. Such is my strategy in challenging the position of cognitive behaviorism as the prevailing model of psychotherapy.

When Life’s Paradoxes Cause Distress

While CBT provides a valid approach to alleviating distress resulting from unrealistic expectations and other irrational beliefs, this approach does not appear relevant for reconciling oneself to the inherent paradoxes of the human condition. And I would not be exerting such energy in my challenge if I did not have an alternative perspective to set forth. And in doing so, I would pose the following questions: What if the structure of our reality were not logical and rational? What if it were paradoxical, instead? And if so, how might we engage in its structure, not in the most reasonable way, but in the most enriching manner?

Beyond the Familiar Ground of Cognitive Behaviorism

I grant that the “third wave” of behaviorism has blazed a trail into this frontier (from the behavioral perspective, that is), leaving behind the familiar path of logical empiricism. Yet while this is foreign territory to the behaviorists, it is homeland for others who are steeped in experiential and humanistic traditions, particularly existentialism. I must also acknowledge that I have been relatively unfamiliar with the intricacies of these “third wave” schools, such that I was going about reinventing the wheel according to my specifications, with their ideas perhaps having some influence in the background.

Approaching Paradox from an Experiential Perspective

The “third wave” of behaviorism has thus approached the integration of behavior and experience from a behavioral perspective. In contrast, I have ventured out from a more humanistic and existential outlook for my synthesis. The tracks are parallel and at times crossing, though coming from different directions.

In developing my ideas, I cannot identify all the works that have influenced my formulations. I have attempted to give credit where credit is due, yet the linkages are not always that clear. Some of them are no doubt locked away in my own “black box.” On this website, I have aimed not so much at introducing new material. (I’ve looked everywhere under the sun, to no avail.) Rather, I seek to integrate behavioral and experiential aspects of life. Furthermore, I attempt to integrate psychological and philosophical material as a coherent whole. Hopefully, I can do so in a compelling and engaging manner.

Philosophers Calvin and Hobbes

With that being said, I want to credit the 20th/21st Century philosophers Calvin and Hobbes, as interpreted by Bill Watterson. (They are not to be confused with John Calvin and Thomas Hobbes of earlier times). Through their fumbling meanderings, they often exemplify the human struggle with the various paradoxes of life. Similar to the DBT and ACT approaches, they grapple with the paradox of being and becoming. Here, the challenge is the simultaneous acceptance of the current situation and the commitment to change. Calvin and Hobbes also explore other paradoxical dualities, such as order and freedom, security and excitement, and individuality and belonging. You can find links to these works in my web posts – but you’ll have to look for them!

For Further Exploration, . . .

If these issues appeal to you, I’d refer you to my other posts on my website. These include my home page, About “A Rogue Psychologist’s Field Guide to the Universe”. Or you’ll find a somewhat more detailed account in Beyond Rationality and into the Realm of Paradox.  I have two other posts, Living Rationally with Paradox and Muddling Down a Middle Path, which address these issues. Yet another post, Vicious Cycles Patterns in Relationships 2.0, integrates the behavioral and experiential components addressed in this article.

When Thinking Distorts Feelings

Cognitive Behaviorism, , , , , , , ,

Emotions tend to be looked upon unfavorably in a society that puts a premium on rationality and objectivity. Feelings are often seen as clouding one’s thinking, such that it is not uncommon to hear phrases like, “Let’s be rational about this,” and “You don’t need to be so emotional.”

Yet when functioning properly, our feelings are adaptive in directing our responses to various events in our daily lives. For example, love draws us toward our partners and others who are likely to be supportive of our endeavors. Anxiety urges the exercise of caution, stepping back from situations to assess the danger before engaging. It encourages a “look before you leap” attitude. Sadness often times stops us in our tracks, which enables us to take some time to grieve our losses before moving on, so that we do not carry that “extra baggage” with us. Anger encourages us to confront others who challenge our well-being, either by threatening harm or by interfering with our pursuits. Disgust repels us from situations we find noxious, whether physically or emotionally.  In all these examples, emotions play an adaptive role in living secure and rewarding lives.

Yet our feelings do not always function properly. At times, they may be so numbed or muted that we become complacent and avoid responding to situations that need our attention. At other times, our feelings may be “over the top,” too intense for us to utilize properly. That may be somewhat akin to having a jackhammer when a situation calls for a simple hammer. Often, it is not our emotions, but our thinking that is the culprit. Our attitudes shape our feelings toward others, events, and things, in terms of both quality and intensity. We have various sayings that illustrate this phenomenon, such as “seeing the glass as half empty or half full,” “making a mountain out of a molehill,” “seeing the silver lining of the dark cloud.” Such outlooks can have a dramatic impact on one’s feelings, which in turn can have a major impact on whether and how one responds to a given situation.

If we look at stress as an accumulation of various feelings in response to various challenges in living, we come to realize that the level of stress we experience from a given event is not so much determined by the event itself, as it is by our perception and interpretation of that situation. In other words, it is the meaning that we attach to the event that shapes the types and intensity of feelings we experience from it.

Another way of looking at emotions is the analogy of potential energy, such as from gravitational pull. The force of water flowing downhill can be either destructive or constructive. When there is too much water, such as with a downburst, a flash flood can bring pervasive destruction to all downstream from it. Building a dam, on the other hand, not only offers a safeguard against the destructive floodwaters, but also provides an opportunity to harness the energy in generating electricity. Following this analogy, we can work at developing healthier outlooks toward the challenging events in our lives, so that we can make adaptive use of our emotions in guiding our actions, rather than having our feelings, supercharged by maladaptive attitudes, lead us to actions (or inaction) that we later regret.

While these unhealthy attitudes can interfere with our response to events by numbing or shutting down our emotions, this exercise will explore various attitudes that wreak havoc by intensifying the feelings. Here, we will follow the format used in my previous blog, Rationalizations Used to Minimize and Deny Substance Problems, which explores a positive application of the cognitive behavioral approach in challenging various types of rationalizations. The following table presents various types of rationalizations in the first column, while proposing healthier alternative perspectives in the second column.

Challenging Unhealthy Attitudes

[ezcol_1half]Perspectives That Intensify Our Emotions[/ezcol_1half] [ezcol_1half_end]Perspectives That Temper Our Emotions[/ezcol_1half_end]

[ezcol_1half]The “Egocentric Imperative”: perceiving a situation from only one’s own point of view, often viewing other perspectives as wrong or inferior, if recognizing them at all[/ezcol_1half] [ezcol_1half_end] Recognizing that there can be various legitimate points of view on a subject, without viewing any of them as inherently right or wrong[/ezcol_1half_end]

[ezcol_1half]Assumed Intent: taking things personally, such that one interprets others’ actions as intended to do us harm[/ezcol_1half] [ezcol_1half_end]Working at understanding the differences and resolving the problem or conflict, with more of a focus  on the present and future[/ezcol_1half_end]

[ezcol_1half]Conditional Assumptions:   assuming that certain relationships imply specific obligations across   the board (the “fine print” in the relationship contract) (e.g., “If you   really loved me, you would . . .” Or “if you were a real friend, you wouldn’t   . . .”n[/ezcol_1half] [ezcol_1half_end]Recognizing that we all must balance being-for-others with being-for-ourselves, and that others are   free to choose when to be there for us and when to be there for themselves, and that there are usually no hard-and-fast rules to determine the correct   choice at any given time[/ezcol_1half_end]

[ezcol_1half]Assigning Blame:   focusing on who is at fault for a given situation, typically focusing on the past[/ezcol_1half] [ezcol_1half_end]Working at understanding the differences and resolving the problem or conflict, with more of a focus   on the present and future[/ezcol_1half_end]

[ezcol_1half]The “Fairness Doctrine”:  expecting fair treatment as an automatic or guaranteed right that we are entitled to, almost as if it were a law of nature[/ezcol_1half] [ezcol_1half_end]Recognizing that fairness is a social convention adopted to help us get along with one another, and that advocacy is required not only to establish one’s rights, but also to maintain them[/ezcol_1half_end]

[ezcol_1half]Dichotomizing: using distinct categories for good vs. bad, right vs. wrong, with black and white   thinking, allowing for no shades of gray[/ezcol_1half] [ezcol_1half_end]Recognizing that both sides of an issue can have both positive and negative points[/ezcol_1half_end]

[ezcol_1half]Catastrophizing:   imagining the worst-case scenario and treating it as reality[/ezcol_1half] [ezcol_1half_end]Making provisional contingency plans for the worst, but also considering and planning for other   possibilities[/ezcol_1half_end]

While this table does not present a complete list of the various perspectives which tend to intensify emotions, it covers a considerable portion of them. We can thus use this as a tool for identifying specific perspectives that intensify feelings, much as we identified various rationalizations used to justify problematic use of substances in the article, Rationalizations Used to Minimize and Deny Substance Problems. In the first column is the statement, using one’s own words or thoughts, which tend to intensify feelings. In the second column is the type of unhealthy perspective being used in this statement. Note that if your example does not appear to fit any of the above categories, you are free to come up with your own category. In the third column, you come up with your own alternative perspective that offers a healthier and more adaptive outlook to the situation. You will note that  most of the spaces on the table are empty. This is simply because I have not sought out the input of my “panel of experts” (i.e., clients with whom I work in individual, family, and group therapy, or readers of my posts). This is a project in the making, and I invite readers of the blog to submit your own examples, which I will gladly plagiarize (so as to protect your anonymity, of course). If I do use your example, you should be honored, as it is plagiarism, not imitation, that is the highest form of flattery.

[ezcol_1third]SPECIFIC ATTITUDES   THAT INTENSIFY   FEELINGS[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]TYPE OF FAULTY OUTLOOK[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]CHALLENGING   PERSPECTIVE[/ezcol_1third_end]

[ezcol_1third]That jerk has   some nerve pulling out in front of me without signaling. No one gets away   with disrespecting me like that.  I’ll   show him.[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]Assumed  Intent[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]While that is   reckless driving, it says a lot about him, but nothing about me.  I’m not going to let him bring me down to   his level of disregard by reacting to him.[/ezcol_1third_end]

[ezcol_1third]She obviously   doesn’t care about me.  She turned down   my asking her out to the movies because she wanted to get together with her friends   from work.  I guess they are more   important to her than I am.[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]Conditional   Assumption, Egocentric Imperative[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]If I wanted to   take her to the movie that badly, maybe I should have asked her a few days   ahead of time, rather than assuming that her life revolved around me.  I’d likely find her to be somewhat boring   if she didn’t have a life of her own.[/ezcol_1third_end]

Beyond Rationality and Into the Realm of Paradox

Paradoxes in Everyday Life, , ,

Cognitive behaviorism has generally been recognized as the current prevailing model being applied to life’s problems. It has achieved such dominance that many assume this perspective as the preferred approach for understanding human experience and behavior. Indeed, some are so deeply embedded in this worldview that they don’t even consider other possibilities. This website proposes an existential model that provides a more relevant perspective from which to address certain aspects of the human condition, particularly those related to the paradoxical aspects of life. In particular, it draws on the distinctions between objectivity and subjectivity and between problem and paradox.

The Rise of Objectivity in Western Culture

Ever since Descartes rested the proof of one’s existence on one’s ability to reason (i.e., “Cogito, ergo sum.”), Western culture has exhibited a bias toward the objective perspective. Indeed, reflective awareness, the ability to step back and reflect on our involvement with the world and the people around us, gives us the impression of a separate identity in a way that subjective immersion in the “here and now” does not present. In this way, the Western worldview has come to view objective experience as a true and accurate representation of the world out there, whereas it tends to view subjective experience as idiosyncratic perceptions, colored and perhaps distorted by the biases of the individual. Hence, we often speak of objective reality and subjective experience.

The Barren Landscape of Objectivity

While the rise of objectivity in Western culture has fostered unprecedented advances in science and technology over the past 500 years, Yet such progress has come at a high cost. In becoming increasingly embedded in civilization, we have fallen out of harmony with nature.– a modern version of expulsion from paradise for eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Perhaps this development is a recapitulation of the biblical creation story. While this may not represent an orthodox interpretation of the biblical creation story, you might say? If you’re looking for a conventional perspective, what are you doing at the Rogue Psychologist website?

The experience (or some would say illusion) of separateness fosters alienation. Our relationships with others have become more objectified, with a greater tendency to use one another, rather than relating to each other. This distinction was highlights by Martin Buber’s contrast between I-It and I-Thou relationships, respectively. In the reductionism that is an inherent aspect of the pursuit of objective or abstract knowledge, we have lost touch with our rich subjective experience. When we process our experiences, particularly in recalling the past and in anticipating the future, our mental activities often involve cognitions (i.e. thoughts and interpretations), more so than sensations. The pursuit of knowledge might be compared to searching for the bedrock of objective knowledge by scraping away the cover of dirt, including the very topsoil upon which terrestrial life depends. Is it any wonder that in this barren psychic landscape, alienated souls have forsaken a lifelong quest for meaning and settled for drug-induced trips whose durations are measured in hours, or even minutes? In their classic, “Is That All There Is?”, made famous by Peggy Lee, songwriters Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller responded to the “feeling that something was missing” with the refrain, “If that’s all there is, my friends, then let’s keep dancing. Let’s break out the booze and have a ball, if that’s all there is.”

Psychology’s Pursuit of Objective Knowledge

Psychology has largely followed this reductionist path through its emphasis on the scientist-practitioner model, in an attempt to emulate the rigors of the natural sciences in order to attain cultural legitimacy. Controlled experiments are designed to demonstrate the cause-and-effect relationships between various abstract factors, yet case studies that retain the complexities of relations are often dismissed as mere anecdotal evidence. Thus, the exploration of the intricate complexities of the human condition has been largely relegated to the arts and humanities.

The goal of this website is not the overthrow of objectivity and rationality, but rather the elevation of subjectivity to a comparable status, side-by-side with objectivity, so that we can explore how the two modes complement one another, like yin and yang. I propose that the interplay of subjective and objective perspectives on reality can point to a transcendent reality. Indeed, I undertook such an exploration in my doctoral dissertation nearly 30 years ago, when I examined the interplay of subjective and objective experience in the development of healthy selfhood. I plan to utilize this website as a means of expanding this pursuit to developing a broader understanding of the human condition – granted, a rather ambitious, if not grandiose, endeavor. In this pursuit, I am proposing paradox as a key element of the human condition, and perhaps in the makeup of the universe (Did I mention grandiose?).

Solving Problems or Embracing Paradox

When we encounter problems, our natural inclination is to look for a solution, typically using logic and reason to analyze the situation. On a cultural level, Western civilization has made remarkable advances in science and technology in applying the scientific method and the philosophy of science known as logical empiricism. But what if the dilemma we face has no rational solution? Here, we enter the realm of paradox. I cite an excerpt from my doctoral dissertation:

“Despite (and perhaps because of) our scientific inventions and discoveries, humans confront paradoxes without adaptive solutions.  We are capable of projecting ourselves into the past or future, yet remain tethered to the present.  We contemplate the infinite, yet cannot escape our own mortality.  We are determined by our histories, yet choose our future.  We are our bodies, yet we have bodies.  These are all features of the human condition for which science provides no solutions.  . . . It is here, where science falls short, that art speaks and perhaps comforts.” (R. Daniel, 1986)

Many are reluctant to cross that threshold into the realm of paradox, not realizing that they already live in that realm on a daily basis. Some who seek definitive, authoritative solutions are put off when they discover that these chapters in the book of life do not have definitive answers in the back of the book. Others have felt muddled and confused when presented with paradoxical phenomena from advanced disciplines. Koans (e.g., “What is the sound of one hand clapping?”) are familiar paradoxes in the Zen Buddhist tradition. In the field of physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the observation that light acts like both a particle and a wave are two frequently cited paradoxes. While such examples demonstrate the depth and breadth of paradox in the fabric of reality as we know it, they have little apparent relevance for daily life.

Paradoxes of Nature, Paradoxes of Daily Life

While I am intrigued by such examples, particularly when they point to a confluence of science and spirituality (cf. The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra and The Quantum and the Lotus by Matthieu Ricard and Trinh Xuan Thuan), I prefer to focus on paradox as it manifests itself in daily life. One of the more familiar of these paradoxes is that “you can’t have your cake and eat it, too.” While this saying can be taken quite literally, it also points to the choice between living in the moment and building for the future, or between being and becoming. Various other paradoxes permeate the human experience of daily life, as will be explored on this site. Rather than sharing vignettes from my clinical practice to illustrate such paradoxes, I prefer to cite literary examples, such as those hidden in plain sight in the comic strips of the daily newspaper. These speak to the universality of such experiences, whereas clinical case studies might be construed as deviant, if not pathological, variations of the human condition. When possible, I will provide links to the particular comic strips that illustrate the inherent paradoxes of daily life. I trust that the authors will see these citations as attempts to illuminate the profound insights in works that are often passed over as amusing diversions.

Coming Attractions

Initially, I will be submitting articles and presentations that I have authored over the past 20 years or so. One of my early submissions was taken from my PowerPoint presentation, entitled “Living Rationally in a Paradoxical Universe: Maintaining Sanity in a Crazy World, Or Trying to Fit a Square Peg into a Round Hole?” I will follow this up with other PowerPoint presentations, some of my self-help articles, and my stories and parables. I will also commit some more of my current thinking to print, with this hopefully being an ever-evolving process. I also plan to share some of my own personal experiences that have helped to shape my worldview. I eventually plan to translate my doctoral dissertation into a more vernacular language and style. My perspective has involved over time, so I will likely do some revising and updating of these works. Yet I may also leave some of these works much as I first wrote them, inviting input from blogs, perhaps to make this website more of a living document and less of a static production. I plan to pose questions to stimulate further thought among my readership, rather than suggesting that I have the definitive last word. I invite readers to share similar themes and patterns from their own perspectives, as I expect there to be a certain resonance among various traditions. Hopefully, such a process can use multiple perspectives to develop a sort of depth perception. I only ask that you respect the integrity of the outlook presented on this website, rather than attempting to subsume this orientation under your own favorite theory or model.  I am seeking to establish a dialectical process in order to develop greater understanding and meaning in life. This includes the Hegelian sense of dialectics, in which a new synthesis evolves from the interaction of thesis and antithesis. Note that I am using cognitive behaviorism as the conventional wisdom or thesis to which paradoxical existentialism provides a counterpoint or antithesis. (Hence, my claim to my role as a rogue psychologist.) It would be ingenuous for me to take this stance, unless I were willing to allow the same freedom of “loyal opposition” among my readers. Feedback from others can be helpful for uncovering implicit assumptions in my perspective, which I welcome (I think!). I just ask that you strive to keep your feedback constructive and that you keep open to considering your own particular assumptions and biases.  I might suggest that you take a “Jeopardy” approach, in making your observation in the form of a question, which frequently does more to illuminate issues than does criticism, constructive or otherwise.

Playing with Paradox

Much of this exploration will be undertaken in a playful manner, as I find much of academic psychology to be rather dry and boring. (I will provide references for the various ideas expressed in this website, for those who want to pursue such lines of thinking anymore serious manner.)  The exploration of paradox would be lacking without the use of humor – indeed, paradox is perhaps the prime ingredient for humor. Whereas reason and logic can be useful tools, they do not provide much guidance when we are looking at issues of meaning and purpose. I address this issue in a PowerPoint presentation, entitled, “Living Rationally in a Paradoxical Universe: Maintaining Sanity in a Crazy World, Or Trying to Fit a Square Peg into a Round Hole?” This provides much of the basic framework for my explorations of the paradoxical universe on this website. This will also lead into another favorite theme of mine, which I first addressed in a self-help article about 20 years ago, entitled “Vicious Cycle Patterns in Relationships: Tips on How To Stop Spinning Your Wheels.” I will also post several of my therapeutic stories, including “The Man with a Monkey on His Back,” about being our own worst critic, “The Eskimo Who Lost His Art and Soul,” on the importance of being true to ourselves rather than selling out, and my Uncle Lester’s story of “The Quicksand Beds of Carumba Flats,” with implications on how to deal with stress, whether our own or that of others. I value storytelling for imparting wisdom, and I paraphrase a Sufi saying, to the effect that “If you want to change a person’s mind, you give a lecture or a discourse, but if you want to touch a person’s heart, you tell a story.”

IMG_0279

I had intended to initiate my website on my birthdate of July 20, or Il Venti Luglio in Italian, otherwise known as “Lunatic’s Feast Day,” but was not able to get everything together so quickly, as there was a gestation process with which to contend. I will still mark this day as the inception for this endeavor, as I find its spirit resonating with the following myth set in the Middle Ages:

Have you ever wondered how craziness has gotten associated with the moon?  We will probably never know for sure, as both lunacy and lunar have their common root in the same Latin word.  One compelling candidate for the association has been carried on in the Tuscan feast of Il Venti Lugio (The 20th of July), otherwise known as the Lunatic’s Feast Day.  This is an obscure Italian festival with its origins in the Tuscan hill towns during the Middle Ages.  When the peasants observed a lunar eclipse during a severe drought and heat wave, mass hysteria broke out.  They interpreted the copperish color of the partial eclipse of the moon, distorted by the shimmering heat waves of the evening air, as the moon catching on fire.  Then, during the total eclipse phase, they assumed that it had become consumed.  Many interpreted this development as a sign that the Apocalypse was near at hand.  Relieved when the moon reappeared intact a couple of hours later, a spontaneous celebration broke out for the rest of the night.  The next day a cool, soaking rain began that lasted for two whole weeks, thus breaking the drought.  This served as the basis of the Church feast of Il Venti Lugio each July 20th, in which lunacy was celebrated as a prelude to regeneration and renewal.  By the 17th Century the celebration had taken on a raucous pagan character, resulting in the Church officials denouncing the event and persecuting its participants during what later became known as the Tuscan Inquisition.  Even though eight women were tried and drowned as sorceresses, secret societies maintained the tradition into the 20th century.  Then, on this date in 1969, Neal Armstrong took “one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind,” with the first ever moonwalk.  This heralded the revival of the festival, which now celebrates the mysterious synchronicities in nature and human experience.

Some have questioned the veracity of this account, but then, there are always those who contend that the lunar landing was an elaborate hoax. Besides, I recall Hugh Livingstone, the Eskimo sculptor in my story, The Eskimo Who Lost his Art and Soul,  telling me, “Don’t confuse truth with fact.” And if anyone you tell about this feast day questions its authenticity, you can tell them that you know it’s true because you saw it on the internet.