The Synchronous Converter

Most people have heard of most phobias. Mention claustrophobia, social phobia, or arachnophobia and everyone pretty much knows what you are talking about. Mention agoraphobia, and most people will just shake their heads.

Because of this, many people who get agoraphobia often take a year, and in some cases, many years, just finding out what is wrong with them. Since the panic and anxiety symptoms that come with agoraphobia are so physical, people who get agoraphobia commonly visit a succession of doctors trying in search of a diagnosis. Since medical doctors are not usually trained to diagnose agoraphobia, let alone anxiety disorders, agoraphobia has had time to become deeply rooted in most people before they know enough about the disorder to seek the proper treatment and being recovery.

In light of this, here are some basics about agoraphobia:

Agoraphobia is “anxiety about, or avoidance of, places or situations from which escape might be difficult (or embarrassing) or in which help may not be available in the event of having a panic attack or panic-like symptoms.” (DSM-IV)

Agoraphobia is a type of anxiety disorder. The term “agoraphobia” comes from the Greek words agora (αγορά), meaning “marketplace,” and phobia (φόβος), meaning “fear.” Literally translated as “fear of the marketplace,” people with agoraphobia are afraid of open or public spaces.

In reality, most people with agoraphobia are not so much afraid of open and public places as they are afraid of having a panic attack in these settings, especially settings in which there may be no one to help in the case of a panic attack or actual emergency.

The most common symptoms of agoraphobia are:

1) Panic Attacks: Periods of intense fear, usually lasting about ten minutes or so (but sometimes longer).

2) Avoidance Behavior: Avoiding places and situations that are hard to escape from or that might be embarrassing to have to suddenly leave. Most commonly, this is because they fear having a panic attack or unexpected catastrophe and not being able to get help or get away.

3) Developing “Safe” People: People with whom the agoraphobic is highly familiar with and feels emotionally close to. “Safe” people are usually parents, spouses, children, or close friends and relatives.

4) Developing “Safe” Places: Places in which the agoraphobic feels psychologically comfortable. The most common safe place for someone with agoraphobia is his or her own home.

5) Scanning: Obsessive monitoring of one’s own body for strange or unusual symptoms.

6) Fear of being alone: This is related to the fear of having no one to help in the case of a panic attack or real emergency.

If you suspect that you or someone you know might have agoraphobia, don’t waste any time in learning about the disorder. Research has shown that the sooner you start the recovery process the more likely your chances of a successful recovery are.

You can learn more about agoraphobia online at the Agoraphobia Resource Center website. The site was started by a recovered agoraphobic with the intention of helping others learn about and recover from agoraphobia. You can find it on the web at:

www.agoraphobia.ws

Stephen Price is a recovered agoraphobic who has has devoted himself to the study of agoraphobia and to helping others overcome the disorder. Since his recovery, Stephen has earned masters degrees in psychology and counseling and has published original research on anxiety.

Contact:
Stephen Price
Agoraphobia Resource Center
www.agoraphobia.ws
559-322-6898

Comments Off

Teen depression comes in two forms. It can be a simple episode in which they are upset because of a break up. Or, it can come in a constant, heavy depression that can and does destroy lives. There are many things that you, as a parent can do to keep your child out of this condition. Teen depression is serious and should be handled in the right way.

What Are The Signs?

Knowing some of the signs of depression is necessary. All parents should keep a look out for these conditions.

• Pulling away from the things that they used to love to do.
• Not eating well. While they may eat normally, they may lose weight. Or, they may not be eating at all.
• Not sleeping well. Waking up still tired is not okay.
• Pulling away from friends and social situations. This is a key sign of teen depression. Teens are social creatures and need constant interaction. If they are not allowing it to happen, they may be depressed.
• The blues that last. While everyone feels bad sometimes, teens with depression feel bad most of the time. You need to get them some help in these cases.

Teen depression that is serious can lead to additional problems. Teens that are depressed may be more likely to do drugs or drink alcohol. Teens in this situation are less likely to do well in school. They may retreat so much so into themselves that they may become ill or may attempt to harm themselves.

One of the scariest things about teen depression is how well they can hide it. Many teens will face bouts of depression, but those that have too many will hide it well from you. If this is the case, you may never realize how much trouble they are in until it is too later. Parenting a teen means; making it your business to know.

Resources:
Therapy for Families
Help with Parenting Troubled Teens
Boot Camp options for Struggling Teens

Comments Off

Anger is one of the most common emotions. Most of us get angry; some of us get angry at the smallest provocation, while for some others it takes more. Some of us keep our anger with us and seethe with that while others may release it immediately.

Anger over what was done wrong with us is the most damaging emotion. It tires us very fast. Any betrayal can give rise to anger that can go out of control. Even the memory can evoke same intensity of anger. I know of one person whose sweetheart ditched her. She was extremely hurt and angry. The thought itself was overwhelming. One day she saw the photograph of her sweetheart with his new love. The pain of anger and helpless frustration was unbearable and medical help was called. After that whenever she got the memory of that photograph, she used to imagine two very dirty dogs in that picture. The anger remains, but that photograph does not hurt as much.

Why do you get angry? When do you get angry? Your anger lasts for how much time? Are their any triggers that ignite your anger? Analyze them carefully. If possible, write down about your anger and think about it. Compare your anger reaction with others if possible. Find out all about your anger personality. Avoid the triggers. Avoid people who make you agree. Avoid thoughts that ignite anger. Save yourself from your anger.

CDMohatta writes for Personality Tests and Quizzes, Friendship Tests and Quizzes and other tests and quizzes. You can try more than three hundred tests and fun quizzes free on http://www.funquizcards.com/

Comments Off

We are forever bombarded by both outer and inner forces. It seems that the more we evolve with technology and paths to make things more rapidly, the more anxiety attacks increase. We should examine this further. You might take for granted that progress in technology would contribute to alleviating stress. However, anxiousness and depression seem worsened now than they ever were in the past. I guess it’s possible that in the past, it was not mannerly to discuss these topics. For sure that is not the same nowadays. In fact, even if you watch TV only casually, it is almost certain that you have come across an ad for a medicine, which offers panic attacks treatment.

You are not alone when dealing with these issues. It might be just public place aversion or trouble sleeping, scientists are always developing groundbreaking ways to fix it. Anxiety and depression are certainly at the top of this long list. When I ponder the notion of depression, I think of somebody who has recently suffered the loss of a loved one or someone who is afflicted in such a way that precludes them from living a regular life. This is not necessarily true. We are surrounded by people that are pummeled by the burden of panic attacks and natural depression for other reasons. Some of which are not even known. Sometimes it could be as simple as the food we eat. It seems to be part of the human condition to lack total contentment with life.

Teens, as related to this issue, are of a special concern. Panic attacks and depression appears to be affecting them more than anyone these days. Acknowledged, being a teen is awkward in some aspects, and incredibly delightful in others. While some teenagers may contend that it’s horrible. We all were teens at least one time. We all know what it’s like. Nevertheless, natural depression was not part of my teenager experience. Who knows what has happened in the last ten years. Depressive Disorder should not be a childhood experience. In point of fact, panic attacks and depression should be much less prevalent than it is altogether.

Comments Off

We’ve all had the experience of being assigned to work in a situation where one of the people we have to interact with is just not our cup of tea, so to speak.

Our negativity toward the person can range from mild discomfort to barely disguised hostility.

When this happens, it’s easy to think, “If it weren’t for him, life would be a lot easier!”

Here are four productive ways of dealing with this kind of situation:

(1) Look inside yourself and ask, “What button in me is he pushing?” and “Why am I having such a disagreeable reaction?”

You might find that he sets off one of your alarms, or arouses a pet peeve over which you have some control. For instance, one of my clients has an aversion to people who show up to work, late. He points to his more than 10 years in the military that makes him respond this way.

Well, he is setting himself up to be angry and upset, and he should do what he can to explain where he’s coming from to his associates, but also to cut them a little slack, because they’re not in the armed forces, now.

(2) Carlos Castaneda, in his many books about Don Juan, speaks of “petty tyrants,” difficult people who put pebbles in our shoes along our path. They exist, says Castaneda, for the specific purpose of compelling us to rise above their power to irritate us; to teach us self-control, and to encourage us to see our debilitating self-importance.

(3) It is helpful to take a very, very large view of the situation. For example, if you believe in reincarnation, this is easy. You can tell yourself, “I was him, once, or someone very much like him;” or “I probably will become like him, at some future point.” In other words, you can see this as a chance to extend your compassion. Look to great role models such as Mother Teresa and Gandhi.
They were able to do this, sparing themselves and others much suffering.

(4) Once I was having a casual conversation with a psychologist who said, “Do you know the secret to being liked by other people? Like them, first!” Could it be that you might be able to warm relations with a person you dislike merely by smiling, saying hello, and extending a few friendly gestures? If you seem to like them, they’ll like you, and they’ll suddenly become less irritating.

It’s easy to grumble about irritating people, but a lot more rewarding to do something constructive about dealing with them more effectively. Try these four tips, and at worst, you can feel good about yourself because you put forth positive energy to turn things around!

Dr. Gary S. Goodman, President of Customersatisfaction.com, is a popular keynote speaker, management consultant, and seminar leader and the best-selling author of 12 books, including Reach Out & Sell Someone® and Monitoring, Measuring & Managing Customer Service, and the audio program, “The Law of Large Numbers: How To Make Success Inevitable,” published by Nightingale-Conant. He is a frequent guest on radio and television, worldwide. A Ph.D. from USC’s Annenberg School, a Loyola lawyer, and an MBA from the Peter F. Drucker School at Claremont Graduate University, Gary offers programs through UCLA Extension and numerous universities, trade associations, and other organizations in the United States and abroad. He holds the rank of Shodan, 1st Degree Black Belt in Kenpo Karate. He is headquartered in Glendale, California, and he can be reached at (818) 243-7338 or at: gary@customersatisfaction.com.

Comments Off

Every year, the Treasury Department of America restores around 800,000 checks that have been lost, stolen or damaged in transit. Now, for instance, the federal government gives social security, veteran’s benefits and other federal payments electronically, otherwise called direct deposit, although one could still be given federal payments by check. Additionally, many companies offer direct deposit of late.

The benefits of direct deposit are many. For one, checks cannot be lost or stolen. For another, payments get to an individual’s account the day of issue, no matter if the person is unavailable or unable to reach the relevant financial institution. Moreover, checking can be done at a very low cost, in some cases at no cost, because banks don’t have the additional expense of processing paper checks. Direct deposit protects checks from bouncing because they are deposited directly and on time. It also saves customers trips to the bank, and the hassle of waiting in line at the bank or ATM. The Federal government (as well as many companies) tends to deposit checks the previous day if payday falls on a holiday.

However, it is all not a bed of roses with direct deposit. For example, if one is attempting to protect one’s earnings from being embellished, or from someone else to whom the account is accessible, then cash or a paper check is definitely better.

In order to establish direct deposit, the employee has to go through the company of employment, who will have the relevant paperwork necessary to set it up. They will want the person’s social security number and an empty check containing the bank’s routing number and the particular account number of the individual. It takes a minimum of two weeks on average for direct deposit to become functional.

Setting up direct deposit for federal paychecks can usually be done over the phone or at the local federal building. However, federal government employees will not get a voucher every month stating how much was deposited in their account. They will have to confirm the direct deposit with the bank. This voucher, which looks just like a real check and contains all the same information, is usually sent to employees of private companies.

Comments Off

Schizophrenia is a chronic, severe, and disabling brain disease. Approximately 1 percent of the population develops schizophrenia during their lifetime - more than 2 million Americans suffer from the illness in a given year. Although schizophrenia affects men and women with equal frequency, the disorder often appears earlier in men, usually in the late teens or early twenties, than in women, who are generally affected in the twenties to early thirties. People with schizophrenia often suffer terrifying symptoms such as hearing internal voices not heard by others, or believing that other people are reading their minds, controlling their thoughts, or plotting to harm them. These symptoms may leave them fearful and withdrawn. Their speech and behavior can be so disorganized that they may be incomprehensible or frightening to others. Available treatments can relieve many symptoms, but most people with schizophrenia continue to suffer some symptoms throughout their lives; it has been estimated that no more than one in five individuals recovers completely.

This is a time of hope for people with schizophrenia and their families. Research is gradually leading to new and safer medications and unraveling the complex causes of the disease. Scientists are using many approaches from the study of molecular genetics to the study of populations to learn about schizophrenia. Methods of imaging the brain’s structure and function hold the promise of new insights into the disorder.

Schizophrenia As An Illness

Schizophrenia is found all over the world. The severity of the symptoms and long-lasting, chronic pattern of schizophrenia often cause a high degree of disability. Medications and other treatments for schizophrenia, when used regularly and as prescribed, can help reduce and control the distressing symptoms of the illness. However, some people are not greatly helped by available treatments or may prematurely discontinue treatment because of unpleasant side effects or other reasons. Even when treatment is effective, persisting consequences of the illness - lost opportunities, stigma, residual symptoms, and medication side effects - may be very troubling.

The first signs of schizophrenia often appear as confusing, or even shocking, changes in behavior. Coping with the symptoms of schizophrenia can be especially difficult for family members who remember how involved or vivacious a person was before they became ill. The sudden onset of severe psychotic symptoms is referred to as an “acute” phase of schizophrenia. “Psychosis,” a common condition in schizophrenia, is a state of mental impairment marked by hallucinations, which are disturbances of sensory perception, and/or delusions, which are false yet strongly held personal beliefs that result from an inability to separate real from unreal experiences. Less obvious symptoms, such as social isolation or withdrawal, or unusual speech, thinking, or behavior, may precede, be seen along with, or follow the psychotic symptoms.

Some people have only one such psychotic episode; others have many episodes during a lifetime, but lead relatively normal lives during the interim periods. However, the individual with “chronic” schizophrenia, or a continuous or recurring pattern of illness, often does not fully recover normal functioning and typically requires long-term treatment, generally including medication, to control the symptoms.

Making A Diagnosis

It is important to rule out other illnesses, as sometimes people suffer severe mental symptoms or even psychosis due to undetected underlying medical conditions. For this reason, a medical history should be taken and a physical examination and laboratory tests should be done to rule out other possible causes of the symptoms before concluding that a person has schizophrenia. In addition, since commonly abused drugs may cause symptoms resembling schizophrenia, blood or urine samples from the person can be tested at hospitals or physicians’ offices for the presence of these drugs.

At times, it is difficult to tell one mental disorder from another. For instance, some people with symptoms of schizophrenia exhibit prolonged extremes of elated or depressed mood, and it is important to determine whether such a patient has schizophrenia or actually has a manic-depressive (or bipolar) disorder or major depressive disorder. Persons whose symptoms cannot be clearly categorized are sometimes diagnosed as having a “schizoaffective disorder.”

Can Children Have Schizophrenia?

Children over the age of five can develop schizophrenia, but it is very rare before adolescence. Although some people who later develop schizophrenia may have seemed different from other children at an early age, the psychotic symptoms of schizophrenia - hallucinations and delusions - are extremely uncommon before adolescence.

The World of People With Schizophrenia

Distorted Perceptions of Reality People with schizophrenia may have perceptions of reality that are strikingly different from the reality seen and shared by others around them. Living in a world distorted by hallucinations and delusions, individuals with schizophrenia may feel frightened, anxious, and confused.

In part because of the unusual realities they experience, people with schizophrenia may behave very differently at various times. Sometimes they may seem distant, detached, or preoccupied and may even sit as rigidly as a stone, not moving for hours or uttering a sound. Other times they may move about constantly - always occupied, appearing wide-awake, vigilant, and alert.

Hallucinations and Illusions Hallucinations and illusions are disturbances of perception that are common in people suffering from schizophrenia. Hallucinations are perceptions that occur without connection to an appropriate source. Although hallucinations can occur in any sensory form - auditory (sound), visual (sight), tactile (touch), gustatory (taste), and olfactory (smell) - hearing voices that other people do not hear is the most common type of hallucination in schizophrenia. Voices may describe the patient’s activities, carry on a conversation, warn of impending dangers, or even issue orders to the individual. Illusions, on the other hand, occur when a sensory stimulus is present but is incorrectly interpreted by the individual.

Delusions Delusions are false personal beliefs that are not subject to reason or contradictory evidence and are not explained by a person’s usual cultural concepts. Delusions may take on different themes. For example, patients suffering from paranoid-type symptoms - roughly one-third of people with schizophrenia - often have delusions of persecution, or false and irrational beliefs that they are being cheated, harassed, poisoned, or conspired against. These patients may believe that they, or a member of the family or someone close to them, are the focus of this persecution. In addition, delusions of grandeur, in which a person may believe he or she is a famous or important figure, may occur in schizophrenia. Sometimes the delusions experienced by people with schizophrenia are quite bizarre; for instance, believing that a neighbor is controlling their behavior with magnetic waves; that people on television are directing special messages to them; or that their thoughts are being broadcast aloud to others.

Substance Abuse Substance abuse is a common concern of the family and friends of people with schizophrenia. Since some people who abuse drugs may show symptoms similar to those of schizophrenia, people with schizophrenia may be mistaken for people “high on drugs.” While most researchers do not believe that substance abuse causes schizophrenia, people who have schizophrenia often abuse alcohol and/or drugs, and may have particularly bad reactions to certain drugs. Substance abuse can reduce the effectiveness of treatment for schizophrenia. Stimulants (such as amphetamines or cocaine) may cause major problems for patients with schizophrenia, as may PCP or marijuana. In fact, some people experience a worsening of their schizophrenic symptoms when they are taking such drugs. Substance abuse also reduces the likelihood that patients will follow the treatment plans recommended by their doctors.

Schizophrenia and Nicotine The most common form of substance use disorder in people with schizophrenia is nicotine dependence due to smoking. While the prevalence of smoking in the U.S. population is about 25 to 30 percent, the prevalence among people with schizophrenia is approximately three times as high. Research has shown that the relationship between smoking and schizophrenia is complex. Although people with schizophrenia may smoke to self medicate their symptoms, smoking has been found to interfere with the response to antipsychotic drugs. Several studies have found that schizophrenia patients who smoke need higher doses of antipsychotic medication. Quitting smoking may be especially difficult for people with schizophrenia, because the symptoms of nicotine withdrawal may cause a temporary worsening of schizophrenia symptoms. However, smoking cessation strategies that include nicotine replacement methods may be effective. Doctors should carefully monitor medication dosage and response when patients with schizophrenia either start or stop smoking.

Disordered Thinking Schizophrenia often affects a person’s ability to “think straight.” Thoughts may come and go rapidly; the person may not be able to concentrate on one thought for very long and may be easily distracted, unable to focus attention.

People with schizophrenia may not be able to sort out what is relevant and what is not relevant to a situation. The person may be unable to connect thoughts into logical sequences, with thoughts becoming disorganized and fragmented. This lack of logical continuity of thought, termed “thought disorder,” can make conversation very difficult and may contribute to social isolation. If people cannot make sense of what an individual is saying, they are likely to become uncomfortable and tend to leave that person alone.

Emotional Expression People with schizophrenia often show “blunted” or “flat” affect. This refers to a severe reduction in emotional expressiveness. A person with schizophrenia may not show the signs of normal emotion, perhaps may speak in a monotonous voice, have diminished facial expressions, and appear extremely apathetic. The person may withdraw socially, avoiding contact with others; and when forced to interact, he or she may have nothing to say, reflecting “impoverished thought.” Motivation can be greatly decreased, as can interest in or enjoyment of life. In some severe cases, a person can spend entire days doing nothing at all, even neglecting basic hygiene. These problems with emotional expression and motivation, which may be extremely troubling to family members and friends, are symptoms of schizophrenia - not character flaws or personal weaknesses.

Normal Versus Abnormal At times, normal individuals may feel, think, or act in ways that resemble schizophrenia. Normal people may sometimes be unable to “think straight.” They may become extremely anxious, for example, when speaking in front of groups and may feel confused, be unable to pull their thoughts together, and forget what they had intended to say. This is not schizophrenia. At the same time, people with schizophrenia do not always act abnormally. Indeed, some people with the illness can appear completely normal and be perfectly responsible, even while they experience hallucinations or delusions. An individual’s behavior may change over time, becoming bizarre if medication is stopped and returning closer to normal when receiving appropriate treatment.

Comments Off

I used to live a simple, happy life. I call it happy, but it was more of a peaceful life. Happiness has different meanings at different times. Till a woman gives birth, she does not know what is happiness of being in love with the child. Is it not true? It was same with me.

Talking of love, I had read quite a lot in books and seen many movies. But love, the emotion was unknown to me. Then I fell in love and my world changed suddenly. I cannot say that I used to see stars in bright sun light, but I can surely say that for me the days became as lovely as the nights. We used to share everything. I used to read my poetries to her on telephone and she listened. That simple sharing was heavenly. The same ice cream used to taste totally differently when we used to share from the same cup. What she bought for me was commonly available in the shops, but I used to wear those clothes as if they were directly delivered from heaven.

I can go on and on about what all we shared and loved. As I said before that I had read about love, but did not know about it. I came to know about love only after falling in love. Love eCard 1, Love ecard 2, L ove eCard 3 If you are not in love, please fall in love. There is nothing comparable to love in giving joy. If you are already in love, please make use of every moment to experience it. Love comes as a blessing of God. Love is a blessing and one need not know about heaven if one is in love. Why one falls in love with a particular person? Why one feels different in love? Why one likes the feeling of love more than anything else? Why one forgets one’s identity in love? And why one dies when the beloved leaves for no reason, is a mystery.

Please enjoy life when you are in love. Enjoy every moment and live it. Love is a great feeling. Experience and live with love as much as you can, before you lose it.

Comments Off

All theories - scientific or not - start with a problem. They aim to solve it by proving that what appears to be “problematic” is not. They re-state the conundrum, or introduce new data, new variables, a new classification, or new organizing principles. They incorporate the problem in a larger body of knowledge, or in a conjecture (”solution”). They explain why we thought we had an issue on our hands - and how it can be avoided, vitiated, or resolved.

Scientific theories invite constant criticism and revision. They yield new problems. They are proven erroneous and are replaced by new models which offer better explanations and a more profound sense of understanding - often by solving these new problems. From time to time, the successor theories constitute a break with everything known and done till then. These seismic convulsions are known as “paradigm shifts”.

Contrary to widespread opinion - even among scientists - science is not only about “facts”. It is not merely about quantifying, measuring, describing, classifying, and organizing “things” (entities). It is not even concerned with finding out the “truth”. Science is about providing us with concepts, explanations, and predictions (collectively known as “theories”) and thus endowing us with a sense of understanding of our world.

Scientific theories are allegorical or metaphoric. They revolve around symbols and theoretical constructs, concepts and substantive assumptions, axioms and hypotheses - most of which can never, even in principle, be computed, observed, quantified, measured, or correlated with the world “out there”. By appealing to our imagination, scientific theories reveal what David Deutsch calls “the fabric of reality”.

Like any other system of knowledge, science has its fanatics, heretics, and deviants.

Instrumentalists, for instance, insist that scientific theories should be concerned exclusively with predicting the outcomes of appropriately designed experiments. Their explanatory powers are of no consequence. Positivists ascribe meaning only to statements that deal with observables and observations.

Instrumentalists and positivists ignore the fact that predictions are derived from models, narratives, and organizing principles. In short: it is the theory’s explanatory dimensions that determine which experiments are relevant and which are not. Forecasts - and experiments - that are not embedded in an understanding of the world (in an explanation) do not constitute science.

Granted, predictions and experiments are crucial to the growth of scientific knowledge and the winnowing out of erroneous or inadequate theories. But they are not the only mechanisms of natural selection. There are other criteria that help us decide whether to adopt and place confidence in a scientific theory or not. Is the theory aesthetic (parsimonious), logical, does it provide a reasonable explanation and, thus, does it further our understanding of the world?

David Deutsch in “The Fabric of Reality” (p. 11):

“… (I)t is hard to give a precise definition of ‘explanation’ or ‘understanding’. Roughly speaking, they are about ‘why’ rather than ‘what’; about the inner workings of things; about how things really are, not just how they appear to be; about what must be so, rather than what merely happens to be so; about laws of nature rather than rules of thumb. They are also about coherence, elegance, and simplicity, as opposed to arbitrariness and complexity …”

Reductionists and emergentists ignore the existence of a hierarchy of scientific theories and meta-languages. They believe - and it is an article of faith, not of science - that complex phenomena (such as the human mind) can be reduced to simple ones (such as the physics and chemistry of the brain). Furthermore, to them the act of reduction is, in itself, an explanation and a form of pertinent understanding. Human thought, fantasy, imagination, and emotions are nothing but electric currents and spurts of chemicals in the brain, they say.

Holists, on the other hand, refuse to consider the possibility that some higher-level phenomena can, indeed, be fully reduced to base components and primitive interactions. They ignore the fact that reductionism sometimes does provide explanations and understanding. The properties of water, for instance, do spring forth from its chemical and physical composition and from the interactions between its constituent atoms and subatomic particles.

Still, there is a general agreement that scientific theories must be abstract (independent of specific time or place), intersubjectively explicit (contain detailed descriptions of the subject matter in unambiguous terms), logically rigorous (make use of logical systems shared and accepted by the practitioners in the field), empirically relevant (correspond to results of empirical research), useful (in describing and/or explaining the world), and provide typologies and predictions.

A scientific theory should resort to primitive (atomic) terminology and all its complex (derived) terms and concepts should be defined in these indivisible terms. It should offer a map unequivocally and consistently connecting operational definitions to theoretical concepts.

Operational definitions that connect to the same theoretical concept should not contradict each other (be negatively correlated). They should yield agreement on measurement conducted independently by trained experimenters. But investigation of the theory of its implication can proceed even without quantification.

Theoretical concepts need not necessarily be measurable or quantifiable or observable. But a scientific theory should afford at least four levels of quantification of its operational and theoretical definitions of concepts: nominal (labeling), ordinal (ranking), interval and ratio.

As we said, scientific theories are not confined to quantified definitions or to a classificatory apparatus. To qualify as scientific they must contain statements about relationships (mostly causal) between concepts - empirically-supported laws and/or propositions (statements derived from axioms).

Philosophers like Carl Hempel and Ernest Nagel regard a theory as scientific if it is hypothetico-deductive. To them, scientific theories are sets of inter-related laws. We know that they are inter-related because a minimum number of axioms and hypotheses yield, in an inexorable deductive sequence, everything else known in the field the theory pertains to.

Explanation is about retrodiction - using the laws to show how things happened. Prediction is using the laws to show how things will happen. Understanding is explanation and prediction combined.

William Whewell augmented this somewhat simplistic point of view with his principle of “consilience of inductions”. Often, he observed, inductive explanations of disparate phenomena are unexpectedly traced to one underlying cause. This is what scientific theorizing is about - finding the common source of the apparently separate.

This omnipotent view of the scientific endeavor competes with a more modest, semantic school of philosophy of science.

Many theories - especially ones with breadth, width, and profundity, such as Darwin’s theory of evolution - are not deductively integrated and are very difficult to test (falsify) conclusively. Their predictions are either scant or ambiguous.

Scientific theories, goes the semantic view, are amalgams of models of reality. These are empirically meaningful only inasmuch as they are empirically (directly and therefore semantically) applicable to a limited area. A typical scientific theory is not constructed with explanatory and predictive aims in mind. Quite the opposite: the choice of models incorporated in it dictates its ultimate success in explaining the Universe and predicting the outcomes of experiments.

Are psychological theories scientific theories by any definition (prescriptive or descriptive)? Hardly.

First, we must distinguish between psychological theories and the way that some of them are applied (psychotherapy and psychological plots). Psychological plots are the narratives co-authored by the therapist and the patient during psychotherapy. These narratives are the outcomes of applying psychological theories and models to the patient’s specific circumstances.

Psychological plots amount to storytelling - but they are still instances of the psychological theories used. The instances of theoretical concepts in concrete situations form part of every theory. Actually, the only way to test psychological theories - with their dearth of measurable entities and concepts - is by examining such instances (plots).

Storytelling has been with us since the days of campfire and besieging wild animals. It serves a number of important functions: amelioration of fears, communication of vital information (regarding survival tactics and the characteristics of animals, for instance), the satisfaction of a sense of order (predictability and justice), the development of the ability to hypothesize, predict and introduce new or additional theories and so on.

We are all endowed with a sense of wonder. The world around us in inexplicable, baffling in its diversity and myriad forms. We experience an urge to organize it, to “explain the wonder away”, to order it so that we know what to expect next (predict). These are the essentials of survival. But while we have been successful at imposing our mind on the outside world - we have been much less successful when we tried to explain and comprehend our internal universe and our behavior.

Psychology is not an exact science, nor can it ever be. This is because its “raw material” (humans and their behavior as individuals and en masse) is not exact. It will never yield natural laws or universal constants (like in physics). Experimentation in the field is constrained by legal and ethical rules. Humans tend to be opinionated, develop resistance, and become self-conscious when observed.

The relationship between the structure and functioning of our (ephemeral) mind, the structure and modes of operation of our (physical) brain, and the structure and conduct of the outside world have been a matter for heated debate for millennia.

Broadly speaking, there are two schools of thought:

One camp identify the substrate (brain) with its product (mind). Some of these scholars postulate the existence of a lattice of preconceived, born, categorical knowledge about the universe - the vessels into which we pour our experience and which mould it.

Others within this group regard the mind as a black box. While it is possible in principle to know its input and output, it is impossible, again in principle, to understand its internal functioning and management of information. To describe this input-output mechanism, Pavlov coined the word “conditioning”, Watson adopted it and invented “behaviorism”, Skinner came up with “reinforcement”.

Epiphenomenologists (proponents of theories of emergent phenomena) regard the mind as the by-product of the complexity of the brain’s “hardware” and “wiring”. But all of them ignore the psychophysical question: what IS the mind and HOW is it linked to the brain?

The other camp assumes the airs of “scientific” and “positivist” thinking. It speculates that the mind (whether a physical entity, an epiphenomenon, a non-physical principle of organization, or the result of introspection) has a structure and a limited set of functions. It is argued that a “mind owner’s manual” could be composed, replete with engineering and maintenance instructions. It proffers a dynamics of the psyche.

The most prominent of these “psychodynamists” was, of course, Freud. Though his disciples (Adler, Horney, the object-relations lot) diverged wildly from his initial theories, they all shared his belief in the need to “scientify” and objectify psychology.

Freud, a medical doctor by profession (neurologist) - preceded by another M.D., Josef Breuer - put forth a theory regarding the structure of the mind and its mechanics: (suppressed) energies and (reactive) forces. Flow charts were provided together with a method of analysis, a mathematical physics of the mind.

Many hold all psychodynamic theories to be a mirage. An essential part is missing, they observe: the ability to test the hypotheses, which derive from these “theories”. Though very convincing and, surprisingly, possessed of great explanatory powers, being non-verifiable and non-falsifiable as they are - psychodynamic models of the mind cannot be deemed to possess the redeeming features of scientific theories.

Deciding between the two camps was and is a crucial matter. Consider the clash - however repressed - between psychiatry and psychology. The former regards “mental disorders” as euphemisms - it acknowledges only the reality of brain dysfunctions (such as biochemical or electric imbalances) and of hereditary factors. The latter (psychology) implicitly assumes that something exists (the “mind”, the “psyche”) which cannot be reduced to hardware or to wiring diagrams. Talk therapy is aimed at that something and supposedly interacts with it.

But perhaps the distinction is artificial. Perhaps the mind is simply the way we experience our brains. Endowed with the gift (or curse) of introspection, we experience a duality, a split, constantly being both observer and observed. Moreover, talk therapy involves TALKING - which is the transfer of energy from one brain to another through the air. This is a directed, specifically formed energy, intended to trigger certain circuits in the recipient brain. It should come as no surprise if it were to be discovered that talk therapy has clear physiological effects upon the brain of the patient (blood volume, electrical activity, discharge and absorption of hormones, etc.).

All this would be doubly true if the mind were, indeed, only an emergent phenomenon of the complex brain - two sides of the same coin.

Psychological theories of the mind are metaphors of the mind. They are fables and myths, narratives, stories, hypotheses, conjunctures. They play (exceedingly) important roles in the psychotherapeutic setting - but not in the laboratory. Their form is artistic, not rigorous, not testable, less structured than theories in the natural sciences. The language used is polyvalent, rich, effusive, ambiguous, evocative, and fuzzy - in short, metaphorical. These theories are suffused with value judgments, preferences, fears, post facto and ad hoc constructions. None of this has methodological, systematic, analytic and predictive merits.

Still, the theories in psychology are powerful instruments, admirable constructs, and they satisfy important needs to explain and understand ourselves, our interactions with others, and with our environment.

The attainment of peace of mind is a need, which was neglected by Maslow in his famous hierarchy. People sometimes sacrifice material wealth and welfare, resist temptations, forgo opportunities, and risk their lives - in order to secure it. There is, in other words, a preference of inner equilibrium over homeostasis. It is the fulfillment of this overwhelming need that psychological theories cater to. In this, they are no different to other collective narratives (myths, for instance).

Still, psychology is desperately trying to maintain contact with reality and to be thought of as a scientific discipline. It employs observation and measurement and organizes the results, often presenting them in the language of mathematics. In some quarters, these practices lends it an air of credibility and rigorousness. Others snidely regard the as an elaborate camouflage and a sham. Psychology, they insist, is a pseudo-science. It has the trappings of science but not its substance.

Worse still, while historical narratives are rigid and immutable, the application of psychological theories (in the form of psychotherapy) is “tailored” and “customized” to the circumstances of each and every patient (client). The user or consumer is incorporated in the resulting narrative as the main hero (or anti-hero). This flexible “production line” seems to be the result of an age of increasing individualism.

True, the “language units” (large chunks of denotates and connotates) used in psychology and psychotherapy are one and the same, regardless of the identity of the patient and his therapist. In psychoanalysis, the analyst is likely to always employ the tripartite structure (Id, Ego, Superego). But these are merely the language elements and need not be confused with the idiosyncratic plots that are weaved in every encounter. Each client, each person, and his own, unique, irreplicable, plot.

To qualify as a “psychological” (both meaningful and instrumental) plot, the narrative, offered to the patient by the therapist, must be:

1.. All-inclusive (anamnetic) - It must encompass, integrate and incorporate all the facts known about the protagonist.
2.. Coherent - It must be chronological, structured and causal.
3.. Consistent - Self-consistent (its subplots cannot contradict one another or go against the grain of the main plot) and consistent with the observed phenomena (both those related to the protagonist and those pertaining to the rest of the universe).
4.. Logically compatible - It must not violate the laws of logic both internally (the plot must abide by some internally imposed logic) and externally (the Aristotelian logic which is applicable to the observable world).
5.. Insightful (diagnostic) - It must inspire in the client a sense of awe and astonishment which is the result of seeing something familiar in a new light or the result of seeing a pattern emerging out of a big body of data. The insights must constitute the inevitable conclusion of the logic, the language, and of the unfolding of the plot.
6.. Aesthetic - The plot must be both plausible and “right”, beautiful, not cumbersome, not awkward, not discontinuous, smooth, parsimonious, simple, and so on.
7.. Parsimonious - The plot must employ the minimum numbers of assumptions and entities in order to satisfy all the above conditions.
8.. Explanatory - The plot must explain the behavior of other characters in the plot, the hero’s decisions and behavior, why events developed the way they did.
9.. Predictive (prognostic) - The plot must possess the ability to predict future events, the future behavior of the hero and of other meaningful figures and the inner emotional and cognitive dynamics.
10.. Therapeutic - With the power to induce change, encourage functionality, make the patient happier and more content with himself (ego-syntony), with others, and with his circumstances.
11.. Imposing - The plot must be regarded by the client as the preferable organizing principle of his life’s events and a torch to guide him in the dark (vade mecum).
12.. Elastic - The plot must possess the intrinsic abilities to self organize, reorganize, give room to emerging order, accommodate new data comfortably, and react flexibly to attacks from within and from without.
In all these respects, a psychological plot is a theory in disguise. Scientific theories satisfy most of the above conditions as well. But this apparent identity is flawed. The important elements of testability, verifiability, refutability, falsifiability, and repeatability - are all largely missing from psychological theories and plots. No experiment could be designed to test the statements within the plot, to establish their truth-value and, thus, to convert them to theorems or hypotheses in a theory.

There are four reasons to account for this inability to test and prove (or falsify) psychological theories:

1.. Ethical - Experiments would have to be conducted, involving the patient and others. To achieve the necessary result, the subjects will have to be ignorant of the reasons for the experiments and their aims. Sometimes even the very performance of an experiment will have to remain a secret (double blind experiments). Some experiments may involve unpleasant or even traumatic experiences. This is ethically unacceptable.
2.. The Psychological Uncertainty Principle - The initial state of a human subject in an experiment is usually fully established. But both treatment and experimentation influence the subject and render this knowledge irrelevant. The very processes of measurement and observation influence the human subject and transform him or her - as do life’s circumstances and vicissitudes.
3.. Uniqueness - Psychological experiments are, therefore, bound to be unique, unrepeatable, cannot be replicated elsewhere and at other times even when they are conducted with the SAME subjects. This is because the subjects are never the same due to the aforementioned psychological uncertainty principle. Repeating the experiments with other subjects adversely affects the scientific value of the results.
4.. The undergeneration of testable hypotheses - Psychology does not generate a sufficient number of hypotheses, which can be subjected to scientific testing. This has to do with the fabulous (=storytelling) nature of psychology. In a way, psychology has affinity with some private languages. It is a form of art and, as such, is self-sufficient and self-contained. If structural, internal constraints are met - a statement is deemed true even if it does not satisfy external scientific requirements.
So, what are psychological theories and plots good for? They are the instruments used in the procedures which induce peace of mind (even happiness) in the client. This is done with the help of a few embedded mechanisms:

1.. The Organizing Principle - Psychological plots offer the client an organizing principle, a sense of order, meaningfulness, and justice, an inexorable drive toward well defined (though, perhaps, hidden) goals, the feeling of being part of a whole. They strive to answer the “why’s” and “how’s” of life. They are dialogic. The client asks: “why am I (suffering from a syndrome) and how (can I successfully tackle it)”. Then, the plot is spun: “you are like this not because the world is whimsically cruel but because your parents mistreated you when you were very young, or because a person important to you died, or was taken away from you when you were still impressionable, or because you were sexually abused and so on”. The client is becalmed by the very fact that there is an explanation to that which until now monstrously taunted and haunted him, that he is not the plaything of vicious Gods, that there is a culprit (focusing his diffuse anger). His belief in the existence of order and justice and their administration by some supreme, transcendental principle is restored. This sense of “law and order” is further enhanced when the plot yields predictions which come true (either because they are self-fulfilling or because some real, underlying “law” has been discovered).

2.. The Integrative Principle - The client is offered, through the plot, access to the innermost, hitherto inaccessible, recesses of his mind. He feels that he is being reintegrated, that “things fall into place”. In psychodynamic terms, the energy is released to do productive and positive work, rather than to induce distorted and destructive forces.

3.. The Purgatory Principle - In most cases, the client feels sinful, debased, inhuman, decrepit, corrupting, guilty, punishable, hateful, alienated, strange, mocked and so on. The plot offers him absolution. The client’s suffering expurgates, cleanses, absolves, and atones for his sins and handicaps. A feeling of hard won achievement accompanies a successful plot. The client sheds layers of functional, adaptive stratagems rendered dysfunctional and maladaptive. This is inordinately painful. The client feels dangerously naked, precariously exposed. He then assimilates the plot offered to him, thus enjoying the benefits emanating from the previous two principles and only then does he develop new mechanisms of coping. Therapy is a mental crucifixion and resurrection and atonement for the patient’s sins. It is a religious experience. Psychological theories and plots are in the role of the scriptures from which solace and consolation can be always gleaned.

Sam Vaknin ( samvak.tripod.com ) is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He served as a columnist for Global Politician, Central Europe Review, PopMatters, Bellaonline, and eBookWeb, a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent, and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory and Suite101.

Until recently, he served as the Economic Advisor to the Government of Macedonia.

Visit Sam’s Web site at samvak.tripod.com

Comments Off

Constructing an office from scratch is a daunting task that brings visions of high costs, weather related delays, and irresponsible contractors. However, alternative construction methods can be employed to lessen this frustration. A modular office, also referred to as a prefabricated construction, is a quicker, and more cost effective method of erecting an office.

Basically, modular offices are built in a factory using the same materials utilized for traditional construction. The entire office is not built in one piece; rather it is broken up into individual modules that can be transported to any site. Typically, up to ninety percent of the office is built at the factory; walls, ceilings, carpeting, electric, and HVAC. These modules are then assembled at the site to form a professional looking office that is functional, as well as expandable. Each module ranges in size from 10 to 18 feet wide to 36 to 76 feet long, with the module width depending on state shipping regulations.

Unlike conventional offices, modular offices have several design constraints. Since the modular office will be shipped via the road, there are maximum height constraints. Typical ceiling heights are around 8 feet vs. 9 to 10 feet for traditional construction. Further, modular office entrances are usually located up to 30 inches above the ground necessitating the use of ramps and steps to reach the entrance. On the other hand, it is possible to have brick, stucco or another exterior finish to customize the otherwise “sterile” look of a modular office. Additionally, numerous options exist for finishing the interior office as well.

The most compelling reason why companies turn to modular offices is the speed of construction. A standard modular office can be constructed in significantly less time than it takes for conventional construction. Faster construction translates into quicker cash flow for the business. Modular offices are also less expensive than conventionally built buildings. A typical construction might cost $100 to $130 per square foot, modular pricing can range from $55 to $60 per square foot, including installation. Further, modular offices can be relocated, allowing for expansion, and site relocation without starting construction from scratch. There are also tax savings related to owning a modular office, as opposed to leasing office space.

The primary hurdle to modular offices relates to their look and feel. If a more custom designed office is desired, modular offices are probably not well suited for you. However, it should be noted, that there has been an increasing trend to permanent modular offices where a portion of the construction is done on site. Basic modular building limitations like the elevated entrance and shorter ceilings can make the buildings look less stylish. While there are certainly ways to address these design elements, doing so can increase the overall building expenses.

In spite of the complexity of the final product, buying a modular office is a fairly straightforward process. Contacting a project manager, and discussing all the specifics is the best way to get started. Even though a modular office may be ready for shipping as soon as a week after it is ordered, it can take several weeks for the appropriate permits to be issued.

Careful, and serious consideration should be taken when planning a startup business, or expanding an existing one. After all factors are considered, modular offices are a cost effective, sound means to maintaining a healthy business, and should be inclusive in any business model.

Jay B Stockman is a contributing editor for Modular Office Systems Visit http://newmodularoffice.com/ for more information.

Comments Off