Now ye're talking - to a psychologist

minikin wrote: »

Sure while you’re here... have you thoughts on the group psychology of an anonymous online forum?

How some people might feel more free to say what they really feel / look for reward by supporting or opposing a view they may not necessarily hold / vent their offline frustrations / seek to express themselves creatively in a way they would not offline, where they may be more accountable and their thoughts seen as non-conformist / is the power dynamic of group-think stifling for those we may do well to listen to / what’s the psychological reward for moderators?
Is social media social at all? Is it good for us and for society?

(A quick 25,000 word thesis by 4th January will suffice, hard back x 2 copies, I’ll p.m. postal address)
T.l.d.r. : What do you think of people’s behaviour on here?

I've actually been interested in this for a really long time, and wanted to do some proper research into it, but I've never had time. I do suspect that certain personality traits get drawn out by online forums (said with the full knowledge that I'm starring in a completely egocentric thread!).

I have found that when my life is full and happy, I spend a lot less time on boards and similar. I don't get as much from it. But at times where I'm perhaps lonely or sad or struggling with a gap in my life in some way, boards has been a lifeline and I have posted a lot. I wonder if that holds true for other people? The 'gap' gets filled by interactions with people here.

I have noticed that there has been a shift over the past few years on boards that reflects general political trends. Previously moderate posters seem to have shifted strongly one way or other and become more vocal about it. I think it must be very reinforcing to be considered "wise" or have your posts thanked a lot, and I think for some people, they seem to have taken that to heart in a bit of an extreme way and started believing their own hype. This had led to the more extreme positions being declared, because they think they will get support for it (and they often do). But it's a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation: Did they hold the views and then feel comfortable expressing them, or did they express the views because they knew it would be popular?

In terms of psychology, there's a lot of things at play. Anonymity can allow people to be vulnerable and reveal private parts of themselves, both good and bad, But after a username gets recognisable, how much does that change the perception of anonymity? You'll start to associate names with positions in the same way you would with faces in real life. Group dynamics can't be ignored either. If you identify with, let's say, the "left" or the "right" politically, you'll want to take that side in debates, and it's easy to get swept along with what the others in your group are doing. If they're being respectful, open, compassionate and understanding, you likely will too. If they're being rude, aggressive, disrespectful, and not listening, then that's probably how you'll behave.

I'm running the risk of actually writing that thesis, so I'll stop with this answer here! There's a interesting review of some studies about the impact of anonymity on behaviour here, if you want to read a bit more (it's not specific to the online world, though).

handlemaster wrote: »

OP what drove you into the field of studies ? Was there a particular event in your early development that influenced your career choice ? If so have you found closure ?

I didn't have any major trauma or anything, if that's what you're asking. From a really young age I'd been interested in hearing other people's problems. I think I'm just really bloody nosy, actually! Then - and this might sound daft - it was Derren Brown who got me thinking about studying psychology properly. I was so fascinated by his early stuff on Channel 4. But I didn't take a direct route to where I am. I tried psychology, decided I didn't like it and dropped it. I didn't go back for a few years, and even then I've wobbled a few times about my career direction.

I'd actually be against people going into psychology at a career with any significant unresolved issues. I've seen it happen a lot, and I think it's got the potential to be quite damaging to both yourself and potentially the clients you work with.

blackcard wrote: »

1 Do you think it would benefit everyone to see a psychologist?
2 I have heard it said that the children of psychologists can be impacted by their parents trying to act as psychologists rather than parents. Do you have an opinion on this?

My answer is going to sound like I'm trying to drum up business, but yes, I absolutely think it would be helpful for pretty much everyone. Anything that you can do to gain some insight into yourself is useful because it can positively impact everything in your life when you understand yourself more clearly (I think, anyway).

I certainly wouldn't be surprised if your second question was true. I also don't see what's overtly bad about that. I think sometimes I put on my 'psychology' hat in all of my relationships if it will be helpful.

One drawback I do see is that you see some pretty grim and sad sides to human behaviour in this field, and there's a risk you'd watch your children too closely. I think I'd worry about so many more things that might be wrong with a child than an average parent would, because I've seen so many of them. Same as a medical doctor, I suppose.

Purgative wrote: »

Oh thank the baby bejesus. Have to say really enjoying the AMA

What about Zimbardo - is that "pop froth" too - just curious really as I enjoyed the book.

Thanks!

Zimbardo is a pretty controversial figure these days. His methodologies for the Stanford Prison Experiment where very flawed and the whole thing was ethically dubious. But he has done a lot of good work too, and he has a long and distinguished career so I'd imagine his books are pretty well researched and evidenced.

cordy1969 wrote: »

Do you think there will ever be a cure for the Socialist Snowflake?

Can't say I've come across that term in the textbooks.

I can only advise you to use compassion, warmth, openness and kindness when talking to somebody with whom you disagree. Using dehumanising language definitely isn't helpful to anybody, no matter how much you disagree with them.

Mountainsandh wrote: »

what do you think of the mindfulness craze ?
(thanks for the AMA)

I quite like mindfulness, but I'm not very good at meditating! I use it if I can't sleep, which is apparently wrong .

I suppose it depends on what exactly you mean too. Do you mean brief mindfulness meditations or the act of being mindful all the time? In the second case, mindfulness is really another word for insight: insight into yourself, into how what you're doing may impact on other people, how they might then feel etc. I think it's a good skill to practice.

Ivanna Deep Mask wrote: »

A little bit of background first. I watched a YouTube short documentary that told the story of the people that had to manually review the "dark side" of the content being uploaded onto a social platform. Child porn, murder, animal abuse etc.. etc..

Turns out it's an extremely difficult job for the people and the company has a high attrition rate. There were also some complaints from the staff that the company wasn't doing enough to filter out this material (that's why you're here...) but I digress.

This got me thinking that perhaps a sociopath would be ideal for this type of job. Now unless I have the definition of a sociopath completely wrong, do you think it's a viable solution to the problem of filtering online content? Also, have you worked with a sociopath during your career and do you have any insights on them?

---

Have you noticed a common denominator with the troubled (for lack of a better word) people you work with? IE: Are you able to predict with reasonable accuracy the cause of their current predicaments within a few minutes of talking with them?

It's an interesting thought, but I think it would be a bad idea for a multitude of reasons! Sociopathy is more commonly referred to as Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD), and it's not just characterised by a lack of empathy - there's a lot more going on, including aggression, impulsivity, lack of remorse etc. It's probably not the ideal group of people to show videos of extreme content to on a daily basis.

It's also very rare to meet someone who truly meets the criteria for ASPD. I've worked with people who had no theory of mind, meaning they had no insight into how anyone else might feel, so they could easily harm another person without caring. But I don't think I've worked directly with anyone who met the full criteria for ASPD, no.

It's not possible to "predict" the cause of people's difficulties, no. My job would be a lot easier if it were!

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I'm a teacher, and it seems "mindfulness" is the go-to trendy weapon to whip out when the students are freaking out (to put it a bit harshly)
Having a bad day ? quick, feel your toes ! feel your heels !

I don't buy into it myself, it's like hypnosis, I can't put myself in that state where I'd be staging myself telling myself to do something (like breathe, relax, feel your toes, whatever...).

My meditation, or my mindful moments, I just experience them when I take time for myself and go do my hobbies.

It is strange for me that we should be (I mean, as educators for example we are encouraged to be_) teaching the new generations a scripted procedure to deal with normal, every day upsets or tiredness.

I understand that in some cases, for example in the case of a person with autism, scripts and instructions for life situations are useful and appropriate (sometimes essential).
Most other people should really build up the skills to deal with life's challenges from experience, imo. The chances to encounter these experiences (and the tips to manoeuvre them) are to be provided by parents (and the school environment).

Do you feel we are a bit overprotective these days when it comes to mental health ? Is modern psychology "helicopter parenting" the new generations ?

I think the poster above about the "social anxiety" generation is expressing the same idea.

I would ask, what is "normal" upset? What's normal for me could be devastating for you. Mindfulness is just one of those skills you've mentioned, that we can build up to deal with life's challenges. It's not about avoiding experiences, it's about experiencing them fully.

No, I don't think we're over-protective. There's still huge stigma about mental health, the suicide rate is still sky-high and until those are dealt with, I don't think we need to worry about being over-protective .

Ivanna Deep Mask wrote: »

Thanks for the answer! Onto more questions.

During your studies did you ever need to study the psychological profiles of infamous people? Pablo Escobar, Ted Kaczynski to name a few. If so are there any interesting insights you can share?

In a previous post you wrote:


I'd like to pick your brain on a hypothetical but ethically dubious thought experiment. Would you mind that?

No, sadly I didn't study anyone. I have read many a Wikipedia page, but I don't think that's what you had in mind!

Feel free to post your experiment and I'll try to comment on it .

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Thanks for the answer above.

I personally think there is a link between resilience or lack thereof and the rate of suicides or mental illness, so while I see your point, I still also see a lot of what I think are failings.



When I was in my 20s, I had depression and attended a psychiatrist for a while. One day I hated him, the next session I thought maybe he had something going for him, then he was a genius, then I thought he was clueless and heartless, then the week after I was in love with him...

Is that a clinical approach, what happens ? Is it like stages that all psy know will happen and that they bring about on purpose ?

It sounds like you're describing transference, which is quite common during therapy. It's a psychoanalytic theory about the redirection of feelings towards another person. It doesn't always happen, and it doesn't follow any set pattern, but it's common to notice it happening from time to time.

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Is there a stage in life where changing is not really possible? The traits are so deeply ingrained that the time requirement to remove them is just too great and damage limitation is the most pragmatic option?
Why do people know what they must do, but still be unable to do anything about it?

What are dreams and can any conclusions be obtained from them? My analyst is always interested in my dreams and sometimes I feel that the interpretation of the dream is tailored to my situation rather than a true breakdown of the actual dream itself.

That's a really interesting question about life stages. I think probably yes, there is a point where change is unlikely. I didn't like working with older adults (65+) because it felt like trying to move mountains to make the smallest change. There was so many times I was working with people in the 75-85 age bracket and I thought "If you'd just come to therapy 20 years earlier...". That being said, that's just my personal view. I know many psychologists who work with older adults who'd say the exact opposite! Everyone is capable of change, but it depends on motivation. Not everyone sees the point or benefits in changing.

Re: dreams. I actually did a lot of research into dreams, many years ago. There is no scientific evidence at all that they mean anything, unfortunately. At the time I did the research, the best theories were that (in very lay language), when we store or access a memory (which can be pretty much any thought your have during the day, whether you're consciously aware of them or not), the brain connections used are 'fresher' and more easily triggered than other connections. When we fall asleep, brain waves pass through your brain from your brain stem through to your frontal lobes. As they go, they can stimulate these fresher connections and trigger those recently stored or accessed memories. We humans love to create patterns, so on waking, we immediately put the fragments of a dream we remember into the closest to a coherent narrative that we can manage.

That's the neuroscience explanation for it, anyway. There was a psychological theory that dreams prepare us for events that may happen, so we have a frame of reference for how to deal with it.

Even though I don't 'believe' in it, I still love to indulge in a bit of dream analysis, but to the best of our knowledge, it's like horoscopes or tarot cards - it feels individual to ourselves, but we've just cleverly interpreted things in a way that suits ourselves, without being totally aware of it.

Tell me how wrote: »

Why do you think our society has facilitated this? There are plenty people to admire in all walks of life so why is it that those who often seem to rise to the top do not have any discernible justification to belong there?

Also, on a similar topic, I dislike intensely the Kardashian culture and while I do not watch them or follow them in any way, I am still curious about the psyche they possess.

Do you think that it is an indication of very strong confidence which allows them (or others like them) to expose themselves to the world as they do, or do you think it is (more often) insecurity which leads them to need the validation of an audience.

I suppose it's aspirational. The majority of us don't excel in any particular area to a significant degree, so the average person is unlikely to become rich and famous on the basis of their talents. But reality TV, and more recently social media, has cut a pathway to celebrity that previously wasn't available. There's more room at the top now, and the average person is now seeing other average people at the top. It shows that anyone can do it, if you're determined enough.

I know nothing about the Kardashians, to be honest. I would be very hesitant to offer any psychological insights into them .

Tell me how wrote: »

On relationships. And more specifically, true love. And just to clarify, I do not see myself as in any way being in a position to judge others but I do have these thoughts at times

Everyone dreams of finding the one, many do (or say they do) and unfortunately some don't.
I sometimes feel there is a difference between how someone says they feel about a partner, and how they actually show this and treat them (Both males and females of course).

Generally speaking, to what degree do you think individuals end up with their perfect partner or is it more often the case that people select someone to play the part of husband/wife/boyfriend/girlfriend and then go along with it as best they can?

TLDR: True love. How real is it?

Wow, what a question! You're really making my brain work .

I don't believe in "The One", personally. I think there could be any number of suitable partners for a person. But I do wonder if sometimes people are so frightened that they might not meet The One that they settle for The Will Do and try to shape them into The One. If there's one thing I've learned, it's that you can't change another person. You can only change yourself. So relationships based on one person thinking the other will change in some fundamental way are - IMO, of course - unlikely to succeed. I'm sure we can all think of couples where you look at them and wonder "Why the hell are you together?". Sometimes they'll stick it out forever because they're afraid of the alternative, other times they'll split up, and other times again, there's things going on behind the scenes that we don't see as outsiders but might indicate they're a lot more suited in private than they appear in public.

Going back to any earlier point I made, though, I think the best way to have a solid relationship is to have open dialogue constantly. I know when someone says to me "Don't do that", I'm likely to ignore them or react negatively. But if they said "Would you mind not doing? It's because [explanation of why they don't want you to do it]", I'll pretty much always do what they've asked. Likewise, if your partner said "Let's do X activity", rather than just saying "No", try explaining exactly why you don't want to. Open dialogue helps relieve so much potential tension and irritation, and explaining your thinking and motivations is almost always received well by others. I know that's not part of the question you asked, but I've typed it now so I'm leaving it there!

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

Thanks OP, some of what you're saying is totally over my head but most is very good, well done!

Can you please explain personality disorders? Is there any way of curing someone with a personality disorder? How come you can have more than one? Is it genetic - can it pass from parent to child?

How do you think Ireland, as a collective psych, is doing at the moment? What's your biggest concern for the future?

Great question! A "personality disorder" is a contentious label that basically says that a person's presenting difficulties are an intrinsic part of their personality, and always have been, and can't be easily changed. It can be used as a really derogatory term within mental health services, unfortunately, and can be used as an excuse to avoid treating a person. It's a really stigmatising label, sadly. There's some good information here.

The most common one you're likely to hear of is Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD; aka Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder). That's often characterised by experiencing very strong feelings towards the self and others, and those feelings can change abruptly in a matter of hours, sometimes. One minute a person with BPD might think you're the best person in the whole world, and the next day they might hate you.

You can have more than one because our personalities are made up of so many different facets. It's the same as how you can experience more than one mental health issue at a time. There's no clear "cause", as with pretty much all mental health issues. It's likely to be a combination of a genetic vulnerability and early life experiences, particularly if you experienced any trauma or neglect, or had a chaotic or unstable upbringing. But those factors don't have to be present either.

Personality disorders can be treated, but it's often a longer road than other mental health issues. Treatment might last several years or longer because it often involves a person learning new ways of dealing with pretty much everything.

Ivanna Deep Mask wrote: »

Do you believe you're good at spotting liars when conversing with people in a professional and casual context?

No! I think I'm pretty bad at it. Despite everything, I'm still a bit overly optimistic and I tend to assume everyone is telling me the truth unless they're really obviously lying.

Ivanna Deep Mask wrote: »

Thanks for answering my questions!

--

When working with a patient how do you formulate the approach you'll be using for their treatment? Do you start by asking a predetermined set of questions and then tailoring the steps based on feedback from the patient?

Do personality types (Myers Briggs / Jung etc..) play a major role in your diagnosis and treatments?

I'll have read as much as I can before meeting a person for the first time, so I'll have an idea of why they're coming (this is assuming they've been referred, not in private work). I have a broad set of questions I'll use to get them to start talking, and I very much tailor it to what they say. Most people talk a lot, in my experience, but when a person is quite withdrawn or reluctant, I usually have a mental list of things I can go through. I generally use a CBT (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy)-based approach, but I won't decide on an intervention until the assessment is complete. There are 'models' of treatment that you can use to guide the intervention, depending on the presenting issue.

I can't think of a situation where a standard personality assessment would add much to my work, off the top of my head, so no, I'd never use the ones you listed. There are tools to screen for the potential presence of a personality disorder, so I might use that if the situation called for it.

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you think one or more approaches is more critical than others, such as identifying and understanding the root cause of the discomfort or giving the patient the tools (such as CBT) to act to overcome uncomfortable situations without being too focused on what their root cause might be.

On a typical week, how many hours face to face would you have? I'm wondering is most of your time taken up with reading/writing reports?

Again speaking typically, ahead of a face to face with a patient, do you put in a certain amount of preparation prior to them entering the room? Am curious more so about regular patients than people you are seeing for the first time.

I'm generally less focused on the root causes because I generally use that CBT approach. Given time limits in the public sector, we don't normally have time to get to the root! As part of our conceptualisation, we will of course discuss what led a person to become the way they are, but I'd rarely do much work on that in the way that a psychoanalyst might do.

Typically I'd be expected to spend about 50% of my time with clients, or at least working clinically (could be discussing cases with colleagues or in supervision etc).

With regular clients, I'll have a plan of what I'd like to get done in the session, but I'm quite flexible. We agree on an 'agenda' at the beginning of each session that's collaboratively generated. I'd always prepare, but some issues are more preparation-heavy (like OCD, because you'd give quite a bit of 'homework' there) and others require less.

Cutie 3.14 wrote: »

Have you ever worked with a Narcissist/Sociopath/Psychopath?

What's your take on them?
I know there are high functioning ones who quite easily mingle amongst the rest of us, but the ones who pathalogically lie, deceive and emotionally abuse and blackmail those of us unfortunate enough to end up in a relationship with them.

Are they beyond help?

I think I answered this already, but I've never worked with anyone with those labels, no. Nobody is beyond help, I would think, but you have to want to change and the types of people you're talking about rarely see any problems with their behaviour, so they're not motivated to change. The only time they'll generally end up engaged with psychology is when they're forced to, which isn't a good basis for change.

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

‘The majority of us don't excel in any particular area to a significant degree‘

Another biggie I’m afraid. Why do you think the human race has, so far, not achieved universal greatness and those that have are often afflicted with mental unstableness like being Bi-polar?

Again, I would think that's much more of a philosophical question than a psychological one! I honestly couldn't even begin to think of an answer for that, other than to say there's always a spread of abilities. The Flynn Effect refers to the trend of human intelligence increasing every few years, but no matter how smart we get, there'll always the smartest and the least smart and the people right in the middle.

It's an interesting question about bipolar disorder, but I've never given it enough thought to be able to answer .

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Yeah I really want to know about that too.
There are people who are so needy/in need of attention, and when you deal with them it's like a bottomless pit, it's like you can never seem to really help them no matter how willing and patient you try to be (as a lay person).
(I don't know if it's narcissism I'm talking about, I'm talking about people who will do anything to get your attention, even negative attention, but then when you do give them attention it's not enough or over, there comes something else. It's like whatever is bothering them can never be solved.)

Again, they can be helped, but it does require long-term specialist interventions. As a lay person, all you can really do is make sure you protect yourself and put boundaries in that stop you getting drained by people. Sometimes that might even involve cutting the person out of your life.

Monife wrote: »

Great AMA and really good responses, have enjoyed reading it.

I have a couple of questions:

1. If someone has a habitual problem with lying (even about pointless, minor things where no lie was warranted at all e.g. telling someone they were going abroad when they were only going to Galway), can therapy help them? What would it entail?

2. Can therapy work in individuals who are very closed books and they themselves sometimes don't know how they're feeling or why?

3. Have you ever been involved in marriage counselling (specifically where one spouse cheated)? If yes, what percentage of marriages survive after counselling?

Many thanks.

1. Therapy could definitely help, by identifying the reasons behind the lying and working on those. Nobody lies for no reason and understanding what the person wanted to achieve through the lies would be a good starting point. In many ways, it would probably be like treating any other bad habit, and it would depend on the person's motivation to change as well.

2. Yes, absolutely, but it takes more time. CBT has a lot of 'homework' tasks that can be helpful in spotting patterns, and in many cases, you could spend quite a bit of time just helping a person identify their emotions. You'd need to look at things on a very micro level which could feel frustrating for the client but if they're up for it and the time/resources are available, then there are lots of ways someone could be supported in that situation.

3. I have never been involved in couples counselling of any sort so I can't answer that last one.

bullpost wrote: »

An acquaintance of mine has been going to therapy for over 25 years, including cognitive behavioural therapy.
As far as I am aware, they have not been diagnosed with any specific disorder, though they do not have depression.

From the outside looking in, I would say they have not improved in any significant way in that time.

Symptoms include low self-esteem, "being down", bullying weaker members of the immediate family (all female) and socially excluding themselves.

I know I'm sketching a vague portrait, but my question is , Is it possible for someone to be in therapy that long without a diagnosis or getting to understand exactly what the root cause of their problem is?

Thanks for any insight.

I hesitate to speak about individuals, but I'd be curious about why they have continued to attend therapy for so long if nothing is changing. I'd wonder what they're getting from it, and whether they're actually motivated to change or if they just like something about the therapeutic experience. The person might not actually be interested in getting to the root cause, or they might not want to actually change. The therapist can only do so much, at the end of the day - the client is the one running the show.

Assuming they're paying for private therapy, there's nothing to stop a person from going forever, if they want to. In the public sector, I'd question why services are still engaging with them. There is a question of ethics as well - at what point do you stop being helpful and start colluding with unhelpful behaviours?

spindex wrote: »

If someone wanted a full psychological assessment how long would it normally take and cost ?

Is it possible for an extravert to change into an introvert and vise versa ?

For your first question, I have never worked privately so I'm not sure of costs. But a "full psychological assessment" isn't a thing. We assess to answer specific questions, not to create a personal profile of someone. If someone wanted a cognitive assessment, or an assessment for ASD etc, we could do that, but it's not like when your GP does a blood test and checks for everything 'while they're there' - testing is laborious and tiring and time-consuming for both client and psychologist. An assessment of IQ alone would generally take about 90 minutes to do, scoring could be very quick or take hours, depending on resources, interpretation takes time and reports are lengthy. Assuming hand-scoring and interpretation (as opposed to feeding the scores into a computer), an IQ assessment alone could easily take a full day from administration to finishing the report.

A person can change in pretty much any way, if they're sufficiently motivated to do so. But my feeling is that introversion/extraversion is a very deeply embedded trait and it would be hard to change from one pole to the other. But you could certainly become more extraverted if you wanted to, or more introverted.