Psychology Space

The “haves” atone for this guilt by contributing towards the welfare of the “have-nots”, adopting the role of “benevolent givers”. The benevolence of Alfred Nobel, Henry Ford, Bill Gates and many others, can be viewed from this angle

The way people have offered help and assistance to those hit by the October 8 earthquake has been widely appreciated. However, it might appear to be a wee bit exaggerated in some cases and the sympathy exhibited can be interpreted as the survivor’s guilt. Survivor’s guilt is a universal phenomenon, experienced by survivors of shipwrecks, plane crashes or natural calamities, who suffer the loss of their near and dear ones.

It was described in the previous article as remorse or self blame for having survived when others, particularly loved ones, may have perished. Survivor’s guilt is a typical psychological reaction in the face of disasters like the one we experienced recently. There is however another dimension to this phenomenon of guilt that is also relevant.

In some recent psychological literature it is referred to as “Marxist guilt”. Marxist guilt is the feeling of remorse, sin, or wrongdoing that relates to one’s acquisition or management of wealth; particularly when this capital-formation has occurred at the expense of others. It typically refers to the feeling of “sin” that some “haves” may feel when they compare themselves to the “have-nots”.

The “haves” atone for this Marxist guilt by contributing towards the welfare of the “have-nots”, adopting the role of “benevolent givers”. The benevolence of Alfred Nobel, Henry Ford, Bill Gates and many others, can be viewed from this angle. However, such benevolence may also have another motive, such as the desire to be perceived as “benevolent givers”. It may be an attempt to manipulate public opinion in their favour. Tax-saving can be another purpose behind some philanthropic ventures. However, the possibility of impression management and other motives does not entirely rule out the element of Marxist guilt as a variable.

Marxist guilt may be considered to operate in at least a part of our national psyche particularly in the psyche of the “haves”. One does not wish to trivialise in any manner whatsoever, the noble gestures of individuals and organisations in this context, nor to belittle the sacrifices involved. The “haves” are under no obligation to contribute towards the welfare of the victims of earthquake and their doing so reflects the nobility of the intention. These gestures need to be lauded and emulated.

The Marxist guilt model is invoked as a possible explanation of some financial contributions. It does not belittle or trivialise these contributions in any way whatsoever.

Putting down the widespread response of the donors to guilt is perhaps heuristic. There are at least two other implicit variables operative in this collective response. The first of these is termed “altruistic behaviour”, in psychological literature that we as individuals, as groups and indeed as a nation have shown in response to the recent calamity.

Altruistic behaviour is the reverse of selfish behaviour; an altruistic person, group or an organisation is concerned with helping others, even when such helpfulness does not warrant any benefits or rewards. The altruistic first notice that help is required, then interpret the information and assume the responsibility for helping those in need. The selfish do neither of these. They do not notice the signs, do not interpret the signals that help is required and do not assume responsibility to help others in need. The overwhelming helping response of Pakistanis shows that we as individuals, as groups, and as a nation, possess a prominent altruistic characteristic. At the personal level, this response is a most heart-warming reaction to behold. I am proud to be a Pakistani.

The other psychological characteristic that perhaps this trauma has made manifest is the collective response of self-sacrifice. Self-sacrifice is the tendency to deny or postpone the satisfaction of one’s own needs for satisfying the needs of others. Consider the way help has been offered not only in the form of financial donations and other materials, but also in the way volunteer services have been offered spontaneously from all over the country. Is it not a measure of an overwhelming expression of self-sacrifice?

After all, the time spent in voluntary work could have been spent pursuing selfish, narrow, personal goals. The fact that the volunteers decided to forego satisfying their personal needs, putting the needs of the victims first speaks a great deal about us as self-sacrificing individuals, groups, and nation. There is also a loud and clear message in this for the doubters and the cynics. We are not all bad, after all; we only need a “just” cause to stir and propel us, and the goodness lying dormant in our collective psyche becomes overt and expresses itself in myriad ways as it has, in response to the recent calamity.

Humair Hashmi is a consulting psychologist who teaches at Imperial College. This is part of a series of articles on the psychological reactions to the earthquake

Source: Daily Times

Many people believe that the goal of any society is progress, however for most of us it is not easy to get used to something new. It takes more or less time for every person to adapt to new environment, even if it is only using a new tool, cooking a new dish or finding a new bus stop. That is the reason why many people cling to the way things are and it is much easier for them to do habitual things.

Any person’s every day of life consists of many repeated activities, such as driving car, dressing, eating. People do most of these activities automatically, without much thinking. Automatic operations help brains to avoid unnecessary efforts, but many people also use this natural capability of brain in a wrong way.

They create “cliché” for many activities in their life, use same expressions, eat same food, and go to same supermarkets. People live with same world outlook whole their life. It is clear that in most cases laziness makes them live with “cliché” because it is much easier for people to make habitual things, say habitual phrases and do the same job everyday, then straining the brain, creating something new, and making progress in their life.

However, there are still many activities, which demand creativity, ability to orientate us in new, unusual situations. Life brings us surprises every day, and sometimes it is impossible to be prepared for all circumstances. Economical and political situation of any country in the world transforms every month or year and leads to changes in many life aspects. Today people need to be creative to get ahead, because it is impossible to find favorable work or life conditions, without any changes and unexpected circumstances.

There are not too many people, which think and act creatively. Most of those people are successful businessmen, artists or politicians, because they can effectively use the natural capability of brain to think creatively. Creative and imaginative people do not achieve success for themselves only; they also contribute to progress of the society. That is why it is important to train yourself to be creative and get rid of many “cliché” opinions in your mind.

First step to think creatively is to comprehend which activities are indeed in need of “cliché” (such every day simple operations as driving car) and which activities demand creativity (such as work, business, education, upbringing of children).

Second, do your daily activities such as work or family creatively, enrich your knowledge about your business, and find new ways to improve it, do not be afraid to give work to your brain, because in daily life most people use only 4-5% of their brain ability to think.
Last, but not least is to be aware that if you are creative and imaginative person you would not be disarmed by unexpected or unusual life circumstances and changes because you can always find a way to adjust and get ahead in your life.

Original Article URL

Madina Bakhitova-Niazoff, MS Psychology, is the chief editor for http://www.psychologyspace.com - an online psychology portal providing psychology news and information on various psychology subjects, psychology discussion forum, psychology RSS feeds and web links. Madina volunteers at Wilmington Hospital First State School - a very special program for children with chronic illnesses.

by Madina Bakhitova-Niazoff, MS Psychology

Coming to the United States 3 months ago I had an opportunity to observe day-to-day life and make a brief psychological analyze of immigrants, trying to answer questions I was asked. Many American people are wondering why do foreign people come to United States? Who they are and where is their patriotism? Aren’t they homesick? What is the main reason they come to a foreign country and make all the efforts to study foreign language?

Many people come to the United States in hope to find freedom, which they did not have before in their motherland. However, the word “freedom” can be understood in different ways – for some people it’s freedom to buy a lot of food, household items or clothes. Having a lack of opportunity to buy goods in their homeland due to high prices, unemployment and low salaries, these people become “happy” very soon, since they are able now to buy almost everything they think they want.

But for others freedom means possibility to grow personally and professionally, to make contribution to the society, being able to study, gain scholarships or assistantships, make scientific research in spite of difficulties with foreign language, expensive education, and absolutely unfamiliar environment. This type of immigrants becomes good professionals in various fields such as medicine, mathematics, physics, construction, psychiatry and so on. They realize themselves personally, making contribution to the society where they live and increase their level of psychological self-actualization. This is not an easy way for immigrants, but the American society also has a lot of benefits for them and their children. Even the possibility to work, be valued and fairly paid is part of freedom, sought by people around the world.

Most of immigrants are homesick, have difficulties in understanding foreign language and it is not easy for them to realize all the rules and laws of the new country. That is the reason why immigrants often get very confused during their first several years in the United States, causing depressions, frustrations and even break-ups of families. Very often recently immigrated parents misunderstand their children who get used to the new life-style very quickly.

However, in spite of all obstacles many immigrants do achieve success. I have tried to understand what is they key to success, talking with people from Russia, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Puerto-Rico, Ethiopia, and Uzbekistan. Together we understand, that the most important way to succeed for immigrants is to realize their goals from first days in United States. Immigrants should ask themselves: Why did I move to this country? What am I expected to do here? And how can I contribute to the society? It is important to have life orientations and values directed to contribution to the society. It is also important to learn more about history and laws of the country, have friendly attitude and some day the American society will reward and treat you with respect you deserve.

Original Article URL

About the author:

Madina Bakhitova-Niazoff, MS Psychology,
is the chief editor for http://www.psychologyspace.com - an online psychology portal providing news and information on various psychology subjects, discussion forum, psychology RSS feeds and web links.

Madina volunteers at Wilmington Hospital’s First State School - a very special program for children with chronic illnesses.

Study supported by the Network for Surviving Stalking (NSS)

Details of media resources and interview arrangements below

The world’s most comprehensive stalking survey carried out by Dr Lorraine Sheridan of the University of Leicester reveals the devastating impact of stalking in the UK and USA. Unfortunately, victims are not the sole casualties.

Results unveiled today (Friday September 23) reveal that virtually all victims of stalking suffer severe emotional and physical effects, and that financial losses have ranged between £20 to £4 million.

And the study carried out in the University of Leicester’s School of Psychology reveals that anyone - not just celebrities - can become the victim of a stalker.

Dr Sheridan said: “The work carried out at the University of Leicester over the last seven years has told us that normal people, not celebrities, are the vast majority of stalking victims.”

“We also know that anyone can become the victim of a stalker, and that individual stalkers will have very different motives.”

“This study has examined for the first time the far-reaching effects that stalking has, not only on its victims, but also on numerous third parties. Stalking is a major issue that touches millions of lives but people have so many misconceptions about it.”

The study found:

* The youngest victim of stalking in the survey was aged 10 - the oldest aged 71

* Half of all victims were told by friends and family that they were ’over reacting’ or ’being paranoid’

* Abuse of pets is one of many methods employed by stalkers

* The average number of people directly affected in a stalking case was 21. Such persons included: the victim’s children, the victim’s partner’s parents, strangers, the victim’s neighbours, and the victim’s work contacts

University of Leicester

Juicy gossip moves so quickly - He did what? She has pictures? - that few people have time to cover their ears, even if they wanted to.

Gossip long has been dismissed by researchers as little more than background noise with no useful function. But some investigators say that it belongs front and center in any study of group interaction.

more…

A beginning advertising executive starts to sweat profusely when she starts her presentation in front of her boss and the staff.

A graduate student stammers and is barely audible when delivering a seminar paper. His thoughts of an academic career, like his speech, slip away.
Fear of an audience.

more…

Financially richer people tend to be happier than poorer people, according to sociological researcher Glenn Firebaugh, Pennsylvania State University, and graduate student Laura Tach, Harvard University. Their research is focused on whether the income effect on happiness results largely from the things money can buy (absolute income effect) or from comparing one’s income to the income of others (relative income effect). They present their research in a session paper, titled “Relative Income and Happiness: Are Americans on a Hedonic Treadmill?,” at the American Sociological Association Centennial Annual Meeting on August 14.

more…

John Dizard
One of the most irritating titles awarded by a group to itself is “the helping professions”. The implication is that people such as utility workers, software engineers, credit analysts and truck drivers aren’t helping anyone.
Lumped in this category with professionals such as doctors and nurses, who do actually help people, are the therapists, counsellors, facilitators and the rest of a farrago of ignorant, overpaid quacks. In one important sense, however, the soft end of the helping professions deserves the name: they’re helping themselves to a fairly easy living.
Sally Satel, a psychiatrist, and Christina Hoff Sommers, a philosopher and conservative feminist, have written a cutting attack on what they call the culture of “therapism”, which, they say, is eroding Americans’ individual and national character. Had they ventured across the Atlantic in the course of their research, they would have found that British society has once again adopted one of the worst exemplars of American culture.
There was a time when the American way of dealing with “stress” was to set the jaw determinedly and get on with settling the West or seizing Iwo Jima. No more. Now an army of the professionally sensitive, possibly not all of whom wear huge earrings and drive orange Volvos, is forcing the public to get in touch with its feelings.
What one notices, reading through the stories in One Nation Under Therapy, is how much the disciples of therapism depend on attracting their subjects through involuntary means. For example, anyone who has had contact with the US family court system will notice how often therapism, in the form of testing or treatment, is ordered by judges or brandished by lawyers. To show a normal scepticism about the unscientific methods involved would be, of course, proof of a hostile, anti-social, possibly criminal nature.
Satel and Sommers trace the origins of various therapeutic “disciplines”, including grief counselling, addiction treatment and the “humanistic psychology” that is at the core of most of these.
Self-indulgence is nothing new, but the contemporary therapy industry was created by a disaster that struck psychology and psychiatry: the development of an effective psychopharmacology in the 1960s and 1970s. Once the variants on the “talking cure” were rudely dethroned by drug treatments that were based on science and worked much of the time, there were a lot of potentially unemployed, unskilled therapists around. Fortunately, humanistic psychology, founded in part by Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers, came to the rescue, and the therapists were saved from having to find useful work.

ONE NATION UNDER
THERAPY:
How the Helping
Culture Is Eroding
Self-Reliance
by Christina Hoff Sommers
and Sally Satel
St Martin’s Press
310 pages

The epicentre of humanistic psychology was somewhere in or near Santa Barbara, California. The local politics were right, there were large houses that could be turned into self-actualisation centres and there was a deep pool of the necessary labour force: con artists who had learned the vocabulary of self-indulgence.
Therapism has developed far beyond a set of amusing California cults for those with too much time and too much money. Now it has wormed its way into the school system, the courts and even the military’s hospital system.
The seeming weakness of therapism as identified by Satel and Sommers — its lack of an empirical basis for its tenets — has been turned into a source of its strength.
Therapy is a jobs programme for people whose university education was a means to shed common sense while avoiding the adoption of the scientific method.
Over the course of an economic cycle, it is true that many people’s jobs get downsized and they have to figure out some other way to earn a living.
But for some professions, supplied by schools of education and departments of psychology, there is a cult of “niceness” that prevents tough questions from being asked about the quality of the product. Given a choice, Americans as individuals could take care of their own self-esteem, grief and actualisation, whatever that is. As Satel and Sommers document, however, they are frequently not being given that choice.