Perspectives on Fear

To Homepage

October 17

Catastrophic Thinking: Hitting the Panic Button

And here is one last post in this series on fear.

According to psychotherapist Albert Ellis, the originator of Rational-Emotive Therapy (a form of Cognitive Therapy), people's psycholgical problems originate from catastrophic thinking.

People often fall into the trap of having catastrophic thinking, such as:

"Everything must go according to my plan, or else it will be a disaster;"

"Everyone must love and approve of me, or my life will be in the toilet;"

"I must be thoroughly competent at all endeavors, or my life will be a catastrophe."

People have a tendency to too easily hit the "panic button." When I think about it, this is analogous to allergies. When a person has an allergy, it means that one's body is being paranoid and hitting a sort of biological panic button to fight off substances that really are not harmful. Similarly, we have a biological predilection to respond by hitting the panic button when confronted with a perceived threat. This comes from our biological inheritance, and is a leftover response from our caveperson days when the world was indeed a very dangerous place for our ancestors. This panic response is the fast-track route to fear, which is mediated by the limbic system, the part of the brain which evolved in lower mammals.

Thus, in anticipating the upcoming election, I am hearing many paranoid rumors or faint but scary possibilities from both sides of the political spectrum. These messages seem to represent the panicked responses of an overactive fear circuit in the limbic system.

From the right we hear:

"ACORN is commiting widespread voter fraud to steal the election;"

"Barack Obama is a secret terrorist;"

"Barack Obama is a secret Muslim." (That thought is scary to some intolerant Christians.)

From the left we hear:

"What if some crazed Republican kills Barack Obama before the election;"

"What if Bush declares martial law and cancels the election;

"What if there is some 'October surprise' which convinces most voters to vote Republican." (Personally, I think the Republicans have run out of ideas in this regard.)

We need to stay rational as this election approaches (as Barack Obama and Joe Biden are), and stay focused on the issues. Focusing on false rumors and slight possibilities such as those listed above, only detracts from the process of Democracy. What is important is that we do what we can to ensure a fair election. Get as many voters as possible registered, and get as many registered voters out to vote as possible, and make sure that their votes are counted as they voted. Also, we need to document any unfair tactics which are occuring, such as voter suppression tactics directed against people expected to vote for Obama. In fact, I recently started a thread on Thom Hartmann's message boards to do just that. There are already many reports of such dirty tricks being done in battleground states. Hopefully, the effects of such tactics will be inconsequential. As long as we do have a fair election, or any reasonable semblance of one, Barack Obama will win, given the wide and growing lead that he has over John McCain.

October 15

Selling Fear

Okay, here is another fear-related post, but it is not about any particular psychological perspectives.

It has occurred to me that many businesses, in additon to governments, have a vested interest in making people fearful. Any security-related business, in particular, ironically has an interest in making people feel insecure without them. This includes private security, and computer security. I have often wondered if the people who make, and fix the computer viruses, worms, etc, that we hear about, are the same people. Also included is the insurance industry. When there is a risk of financial devastation, people are motivated to get insurance. The medical industry engenders the same phenomenon. If doctors can scare people enough over their health, perhaps they will overcome any fear of doctors, open up their pocketbooks, and see a doctor, or doctors. Even public servants such as firefighters and police have a vested interest in seeing that people perceive them as useful members of society; thus, it is in their interest to see that people do not feel too secure without them. Several times, I have heard of cases in which arsonists turned out to be firefighters. Of course, we all know about "crooked" police officers. Fortunately, security personnel are not paid by the incident, police officers are not paid by the crime, or crime solved, and firefighters are not paid by the fire, or the problem would be even worse. Overall, it is clear, however, that a large portion of the population in these mostly masculine-oriented professions have an interest in making people fearful of what might happen if they were not around. As I write this, by the way, my computer has an insistent message every few minutes that my Norton Antivirus subscription only has 30days left, and suggesting that I should renew it as soon as possible. My computer will continue to do so until I renew the subscription.

Actually, what I am suggesting is reminiscent of the way that organized crime works -- people pay the criminals for "protection." Protection from who? From the criminals. Pay us or we will bust your heads! Such industries can easily become a racket, and even worse, a legal one, at that, as opposed to the illegal activities of the Mafia, for example. It is true that insurance agents do not attack people who do not buy insurance from them, but they are doing their best to form a sort of monopoly in which to ensconce our money. The bloated military budget of the U.S. government is another sort of monopoly which absorbs huge amounts of capital for its own sake, not for the sake of the public, whatever excuses they or our politicians might try to lay on us.

What can we do about this problem? If we make society truly safer, truly healthier, the need for such professions diminishes. The perception of safety is what matters most. Similar to previous posts, if people respond rationally to threats, exaggerated reactions to perceived threats are ameliorated. We can train ourselves to perform a more rational mental calculus than what the fear-mongers of the world, who actually benefit due to the misery and insecurities of others, would like us to perform. Of course, there always is a risk of some unanticipated disaster occuring, however unlikely that is, so our mental calculus does not always work out for the best. However, I am not suggesting that we do not get insurance, although the current number of uninsured Americans suggests otherwise. Nor am I suggesting that we do not have police officers or firefighters, nor our government military personnel, for that matter. I am not suggesting that we do not need to buy computer protection software. And I suppose that some stores do need security personnel to prevent theft. What I am suggesting is that people do not panic and act out of fear, buying expensive insurance, having unnecessary and expensive medical tests performed, calling 911 at the drop of a hat, or buying the most expensive computer protection software. And for God's sake, let us not let the next act of terorrism commited by foreigners in the United States become the rallying point for another foreign war and/or occupation. The saying, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" comes to mind. We all have a stake in running a civilized, safe society. If we all do our part, and not overely upon, nor overindulge, those who offer us security, then these industries will reach a reasonable balance within our society, rather than being the bloated, cash cows that some of them have clearly become, at least here in the United States.

The other thing that we as citizens can do about the overly influential nature and oft-overpaid nature of such industries, is to demand of our government that they be reasonably regulated. This is one of the functions of government which has been ignored by deregulation-happy neocons and even some Democrats since Ronald Reagan was President. And the problem has only gotten worse since then. Perhaps a postive outcome of the current financial crisis, aside from helping convince voters to elect Obama to be our next President, will be to result in widespread, useful regulation of not only the financial industry, but other cash cows as well, such as insurance and the military. Furthermore, perhaps people who use such industries to take advantage of others will be held accountable, maybe sent to jail, or have their money taken away from them and used to reimburse the people and the government, so that the money will be in the hands of those who really deserve it, and who can put it to better use than lining the pockets of the scoundrels from whence the money came.

October 14

The Nature, Nurture, Free-Will and Fear

This is the final post in this series about perspectives on fear.

There are three general factors which influence our development. One is biology (sometimes referred to as nature). The second is one's environment (sometimes referred to as nurture). The final one is free-will, for which one has a choice of various names. The various perspectives in psychology have different emphases on these three factors. The biological, evolutionary and psychodunamic approaches emphasize biology. The behavioral and sociocultural approaches emphasize environment. Lastly, the humanistic and cognitive approaches emphasize free-will.

Relatiing these factors to fear, one finds that our biological nature gives us a predilection toward fear as a primitive emotion that is felt when one senses a threat, although one does not necessarily understand the source of the fear. Our brains are organized with a "fast path to fear" and panic which is mediated by the limbic system, in particular, the amygdala. However, we also have a slower and more thoughtful way of assessing threats mediated by the cerebral cortex. The way our brains are organized are a product of evolution, so that our "inner cavepersons" may respond fearfully in ways that are no longer adaptive in modern society. Societal evolution is now proceeding much faster than is biological evolution. However, not all person's brains are built the same way. Some persons have a greater predilection to view the world fearfully, a sort of tempermental difference which leads to personality clashes, such as authoritarian versus non-authoritarian personalities.

Environmental influence on fear is delineated by the behavioral approach, which says that emotional responses are conditioned by associations, rewards, relief, and punishment. Whatever we learn to associate with threat or punishment become fear-evoking stimuli. Fear-based political or religious messages work by promising relief from threat or punishment. Culture informs us further regarding how we should feel about various institutions and what responses are appropriate in a given situation. Culture is the great conditioner. It provides the associations, rewards, relief, or punishment that shape people's emotional responses. Thus, people's vulnerability to fear-based messages is in part a function of biological and environmental factors.

In the context of the famous nature versus nurture controversy, our fear responses to stimuli are the product of an interaction between our biology and our environment. However, both of these factors give the impression that fearfulness is not under the person's volitional control. In fact, we can shape our own personalities to a large extent. According to the humanistic perspective, we are self-motivated creatures seeking to self-actualize -- that is, fulfill our greatest and unique potentials as human beings. Fear puts us at lower levels of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, that is, biological survival and safety issues, which retard the quest for self-actualization. Furthermore, we can choose whether or not to be fearful in a given situation, so it behooves us to choose to meet challenges without fear rather than acting out of fear, unless there truly is an imminent threat of great danger. The cognitive approach also emphasizes the fact that we volitionally arrange our environments in order to suit our wants and needs. Trusting people arrange an environment which is conducive to productive activities and learning. These people are apt to thrive and be well-adjusted. People who view their environments as dangerous and not trustworthy will arrange environments, on the other hand, which are obsessed with safety. They are not able to concentrate on productive activities or learning, in contrast to their more trusting counterparts.

Thus, although we are influenced by biological and environmental factors when responding to stress and threats, one's response to threat is ultimately under one's own control. We choose when to be fearful or not fearful, how to be fearful when we are fearful, and what to do about threats -- whether to act aggressively out of fear, flee the situation out of fear, or develop a rational, nuanced problem-solving approach based not on fear, but rather, the need to meet a challenge. In other words, we can, and should, choose not to be vulnerable to the manipulation attempts of fear-based messages, but rather, choose a rational goal-oriented, problem solving approach which does not exaggerate, or ignore, threats or create unjustified fear.

October 13

Perspectives on Fear: Cultural Emotional Training

The Sociocultural Perpsective is the final of the seven psychological perspectives which I use as a basis to discuss fear. Cultural training has a profound impact on a person's world view. research on emotion, in fact, shows that culture has an impact on which emotion is experienced in certain situations, how strongly emotions are felt in those situations, how emotions are expressed, and how they influence our behavior. For example, Asians often feel shame in situations in which Americans or Europeans would feel guilt, and Asians attribute their successes more to effort than to ability and consequently feel less personal pride for their successes than do Americans and Europeans.

Cultures also influence how we process fear. Some cultures live with more fear than others due to actual dangers, such as war, famine and so forth. Other cultures, however, nutrure an atmosphere of fear and paranoia. In mainland China, for example, the government asserts its dominance in many fear-evoking ways. People are encouraged, in fact, to inform the government about the anti-government activities of their neighbors, which may result in those neighbors disappearing, being jailed, or being sent to communist camps for "re-education." Although these activities by the Chinese government seem to have been toned down and reduced in recent years, they appear to still be going on. On the other hand, in recent years, the United States has just begun asking people to inform on their neighbors about anti-American activities. We seem to have been moving in the direction of authoritarianism as a culture under the auspices of the Bush administration. Hopefully, this situation is about to reverse itself. However, it does make sense, when neighbors are acting suspiciously, perhaps manufacturing drugs or plotting to commit acts of terrorism, to inform police. This is an important part of public service and cooperation in providing information to the police. It is when people use their personal grievances against acquaintances to persecute those acquaintances, perhaps lying about what is going on, or depending on an overly sensitive government to carry out its vengeance, that this becomes a problem. A result of this atmosphere of alarm and hyper-alertness to danger is to help build a culture of fear.

Other factors in creating a culture of fear are government messages which exaggerate dangers such as terrorism, or threats from unfriendly foreign nations, news reports which focus on dangers such as terrorism and violent crime, a culture of militarism or the constant presence of military personnel and/or security personnel. Of course, the presence of military of security personnel can be a soothing influence, but that is a double edged sword. Seeing these armed, uniformed people tells us that there is danger about, and that we must trust in these specialized weapons-carrying people to protect us. Andrew Bacevich, the professor and author who was mentioned in a previous post, writes that Americans have fallen in love with the military, by and large, and the idea of having "good war." in particular. What is startling about this is the background of Bacevich. He is a true conservative (small government, low taxes, small military), who actually spent 20 years in the military, and whose son was killed in Iraq in May of 2007. In order to have "good wars," there must be the perception of constant threat from other cultures, as well as a sense of cultural superiority. The phrase "We are killing them for their own good" comes to mind. That is an appropriate concept to be aware of on Columbus Day, since Columbus, along with his cronies, felt culturally justified in enslaving, raping, and killing the native peoples which he found on islands such as Hispaniola (now Haiti and the Dominican Republic). Before long, in fact, there were no natives left on Hispaniola, which Columbus continued to mistakenly believe was India (thus the name "Indians"). Our brutality may not be as overt as it was during Columbus' time, but American exceptionalism and feelings of cultural superiority are now thriving, something which needs to change. Truly superior people do not need to advertise it, nor do truly superior cultures. It is the paranoid and insecure who need to advertise their superiority. The result of American exceptionalism ("only in America") and consequent feelings of cultural superiority, is that citizens of the United States find themselves consistently fearful of foreigners, especially ones who are from nations which do not have friendly relations with our government.

Thus, even though the citizens of the United States probably live in the most insulated, free-from-invasion society in the world, we find ourselves in a low-level but constant and ominous state of alarm and fear. One may choose to deal with these cultural messages rationally, as I do, and learn to ignore inflated remote, and imagined threats. On the other hand, one may respond to these messages with panic and aggression. The effects of how an individual processes each of the seven perspectives on fear, determines which is the case. Psychology teaches us that biology is not destiny. We can train ourselves to ignore irrational fearful impulses, leaving us freer to pursue productive activities, or to deal with actual threats rationally.

October 9

Perspectives on Fear: The Authoritarian Mindset

There has actually been a considerable amount of research linking personality to political persuasion. The first book on the topic, in the 1950s was The Authoritarian Personality. Since then, there have been other research and books on the topic. All of them come to the same conclusion: conservatives tend to view the world hierarchically, a world in which leaders run societies autocratically, and are to be feared by all others. Amibitious conservatives, then, aspire to be the ones in power and feared by others, if for no other reason, so that they will not themselves have to spent their lives fearing others. Studies on stress, at least in monkeys, substantiates that the leaders -- the top monkey, in this case -- experiences less stress than the rest of the monkeys. This implies that bosses are actually less stressed than those who take their orders, and the top boss -- the president -- can do as he pleases without fear of reprisal, as long as his conscience does not bother him. Does this sound familiar?

Loosely speaking, this line of research on the link between personality and political views is based on the Psychodynamic Perspective in psychology, the one founded by Freud. Most of the substance of this perspective has been discredited, but there are some topics for which this perspective helps provide useful insight, such as understanding the authoritarian mindset. Freud, and other pyschodynamic theorists, placed huge emphasis on relations between young children and thier parents. Largely, they see the power differential between parent and child as the key factor in shaping a child's personality. For example, Freud thought that children from age 3-6 wanted to replace their same-sex parent, who they viewed as a rival, but were afraid to try due to their small stature, weakness, and inability to perform adultlike tasks. Eventually, Freud thought, the child identifies with the same-sex parent, at which time, the child forms a conscience which consists of the distilled standards of behavior of the society in which the child lives, and which Freud called the superego. According to Freud, the boys superego, which is afraid of authority and therefore conforms to authority, is stronger in men than in women, because littel boys are afraid of being castrated -- something which Freud called castration anxiety -- but girls are not. Of course, this flies in the face of reason, given that our jails are filled with men, not women, and that people who start wars or commit atrocities are generally men. However, men do tend to be more fearful of authority than are women due to their socialization and experiences with authority. This implies that men are more likely to have an authoritarian mindset than women, which indeed is the case, and that men are more likely to be political conservatives than women, which is also the case.

Another psychodynamic theory which deals with how power relations shape the personalities of young children is that of Alfred Adler. He focused on the feelings of inferiority engendered in a child because of the child's comparison to his or her parents as well as to older siblings. He thought that feelings of inferiority led to striving for superiority as adults, and thus were the source of adult ambitions. Thus, the more inferior a child feels, the more the child wishes to become the "top dog" as an adult. The child comes to view the world hierarchically, and wants to be at the top of that hierarchy, typical of the authoriarian mindset. However, those who cannot be at the top of the hierarchy tend to conform and fall in line so as not to invite trouble. They may also compensate for their lack of power, by scapegoating those who are even less powerful than they are, or by feeling racially or culturally superior (prejudice). This helps explain why racists tend to be political conservatives.

Studies of parenting styles tend to observe 4 different ones, as first described by developmental psychologist Diana Baumrind. One, called Authoritarian, which is hierarchical, stirict and demanding as the name implies, tends to result in children with an authoritarian mindset. They are shy and conforming, and low in achievement, but sometimes become bullies when given the opportunity. Other parenting styles include Authoritative, in which parents use reason and encouragement to help their children become well adjusted and competent; permissive, in which parents shower their children with affection but employ little discipline, allowing their children to become their own, self-confident but sometimes spoiled, people; uninvolved parenting, in which parents pay little attention to their children, usually because they are preoccupied with work or their own psychological problems, so that their children grow up resentful, bitter, and often antisocial (lacking in conscience). Authoriatarian parenting is a very common traditional parenting style. Parents with an authoritarian mindset presumably tend to employ an Authoritarian parenting style, a trend which tends to repeat itself from generation to generation. Thus, there are families in which the great majority of members over a period of generations have had conservative politics. On the other hand, some children of Authoritarian parents rebel against their parents strictness, and become Permissve parents when they have children, Permissive being essentially the opposite of Authoritarian parenting. The founder of the Humanistic Perspective in psychology, Carl Rogers, in fact, was rebelling not only against Freud's vision of the world, but also that of his strict, fundamentalist Christian parents.

This leads me to a final set of connections to the authoritarian mindset. One is religion, especially fundamentalist, God-fearing religion, whatever form it may take, and the authoritarian mindset. Authoritarian thinking lends itself to a hierarchical view of the universe, one in which an all-powerful God judges people quite harshly unless they meet very specific criteria (Rogers' conditions of worth). Thus, authoritarians are attracted to such religion. They are also attracted to the military, with its strict, authoritarian hierarchy and discipline, and tend to revel in military exploits both past and present. Unfortunately, they fall in love with the idea of being "at war." War is a way to "prove oneself" in the striving-for-superiority sense of Alfred Adler, perhaps a way to "best one's father" as well, in a Freudian sense. When we put these connections in the context of the MIRP (Military-Industrial-Religious-Political) complex of which I wrote earlier, it becomes clear how such a force can -- and has been -- created when people with an authoritarian mindset, with their fearful world view, enjoy a prolonged stay in power. Now, the pendulum of history is shifting, and signs are evident that this period of conservative political dominance is coming to an end. As citizens, we need to ensure that it does indeed come to a peaceful and productive conclusion, and that we learn from the mistakes that have been made during this period.

Addendum: By the way, there is a biological side to Authoritarianism. A study of identical twins who were adopted to different families at birth, the so-called "Minnesota Twins Study" found that by and large, personality was about half the result of heredity, half experience. Furthermore, they found that Traditionalism (61% heritability) and Social Infuence (60% heritability) are the two most heritable personality traits studied. Thus, distressingly, the tendency toward Authoritarianism, or against Authoritarianism, appears to be greatly influenced by biology. As long as this is the case, perhaps Authoritarians will always be clashing with anti-Authoritarians.

October 8

Perspectives on Fear: The Inner Caveperson

We have emotions for a reason. They serve to tell us what to value, what to avoid; they tell us what to do, shape our personalities, and help our interactions with others. Emotions are useful, and they are of intrinsic value.

The Evolutionary Approach in Psychology suggests some ways that emotions such as fear might have evolved. Clearly, in the past, we lived in a much more dangerous world. There was a real danger of becoming victims of larger animals. People were more at the mercy of their environments during our evolutionary past. Natural disasters were a common cause of death. Accidents were also common and hard to avoid. There was no medical establishment to help people when they got sick or injured. People had no immunity to many diseases. Conflicts and wars were common, and many people were victims of invading peoples. There was no established legal system, and no nations, much less international organizations such as the United Nations. The world was indeed a scary place fraught with dangers, and life expectancies were very short.. Fear was a common and appropriate response.

Now, we have overcome or drastically reduced many of these dangers. The world is a much safer place than it was historically. We still have appropriate fear in many situations, but there is less to fear than before. However, while we have reshaped the world to suit our needs in the past several thousand years, our genetic inheirtance has not changed much, certainly not in regard to the way that our brain interprets situations as fearful. Societal evolution has overtaken physical evolution. Now, people find themselves in a modern, human dominated world which is civilized for the most part, but still have the fearful minds of cavemen and cavewomen.

Yes, emotions are actually rational when they occur in proportionate response to real stimuli, but when they occur disproportionately, or in response to imagined stimuli, they become irrational and pathological. Fear is a prime example of this. Fear-based messages, using threat exagerration or paranoia to create a response, appeal to one's inner caveperson, via the limbic system. They harken back to the very dangerous world in which we humans evolved, and to which our brains are still adapted. In other words, our brains are maladapted to the modern world we have created in terms of emotions, especially the emotion of fear. We tend to become easily frightened even when there is no clear danger, even paranoid. We are overly responsive to fear-based messages. We are susceptible to messages saying that our freedoms are in danger of being taken away, that we are about to be invaded or attacked, that ominous and imminent dangers are lurking somewhere "out there" even when that is an illusion or a faint possibility.

Of course, some people are more vulnerable to such messages than others. Some people do see the world as a more dangerous place, and people as more untrustworthy and wicked, than do others. To risk sounding like a broken record, those people are generally what we call social conservatives. Another complicating factor is the way our brains process stress. We have certain genes which mediate our response to stress. A recent finding in genetics is that the actions of genes can be modified by experience, a sort of biological consequence of nature-nurture interactions. Basically, some people are born with a stress gene that is turned on (courtesy of their parents). If this gene is in the on position, it tells the person that the world is a stressful place, full of fearsome possibilities, so that the person makes stress hormones such as adrenaline at a higher rate. The person's experiences in life may once again modify this gene's actions, but that is not an easy thing to do, so that people who are born with the stress gene in the "on position" tend to find a scarier world, even in adulthood, than those born with it in the "off position." I would speculate that such stress-perceiving people are much more vulnerable to irrational, fear-based messages than their serenity-seeing counterparts.

Fear is a rational response when faced with truly dangerous circumstances, but our inner cavepersons, whose brains are expecting to see a world occupied by a plethora of true dangers, tends to make people see dangers where there are none, or exaggerate existing threats. How to make fear serve us in a rational manner, and avoid irrational fearful responses, and aggression resulting from irrational fear, is one of the most important challenges facing modern society. In this context, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq by the U.S. respresent failures of rationality, in which unwarranted fears directed against Middle Eastern peoples, based on exaggerated or non-existent threats, have led to dire consequences including hundreds of thousands of deaths and the disruptions of several societies including our own. In other words, the Bush clan's inner cavepersons became paranoid and consequently went on a rampage against the Middle Eastern clans of Afghanistan and Iraq.

During this current election cycle, the public continues to be bombarded with right-wing fear-mongering messages. It is incumbent upon us to see these messages for the falsehoods that they are.

October 6

Perspectives on Fear: A Primitive Emotion?

Early theories of emotion tended to characterize emotions as primitive (and feminine). As it turns out, emotions for the most part are a function of the more advanced part of the human brain -- the cerebral cortex. However, we do have neurological influence on our emotions from more primitive parts of our brains. Especially, the limbic system, which is the part of our brain which evolved in lower mammals, deals with emotions, as well as sex, aggression, and memory. For the most part, the limbic system seems to be associated with good feelings and reward. However, it also plays a role in primitive negative emotions as well, especially fear. One part of the limbic system, the amygdala, is also important to the formation of emotional memories.

Brain researchers, in fact, have found in recent years that we seem to have two emotional systems, as suggested by the emotional functions of both the limbic system and the cerebral cortex. The limbic system seems to generate primitive emotions quickly, sort of a knee-jerk response system of emotion. The cerebral cortex generates the full range of human emotion. It generates the same types of emotions that the limbic system does, such as basic pleasure and fear, but also, many more advanced emotions which require greater understanding. Furthermore, the cerebral cortex emotional system works more slowly. It considers the situation prior to deciding what emotion to feel.

When fear-based messages are employed, they first appeal to the limbic system. Only later, the more rational, cortical part of the brain may analyze and critique the feelings of the limbic system. Of course, these events happen relatively quickly, but the first reaction and the emotional memory associated with it can have a lasting impact. What you first remember when you are reminded of a fearful event -- such as 9/11 -- originates in the limbic system. All too often, it is this knee-jerk reaction which governs behavior. It is the first thing pushing the buttons on a person's decision box. Thus, when fear-based messages are being used, such as references to terrorism -- the Republicans are now trying to associate Barack Obama with someone named Ayers who commited acts of terrorism when Obama was only 8 years old, but renounced his terrorist activities long before he met Obama -- or economic disaster, for example, an attempt is being made to appeal to the limbic system of emotion, to create a knee-jerk response in agreement with the message. It is an attempt to short-circuit our more intelligent, rational emotional system located in the cerebral cortex. When that happens, people make impulsive, irrational decisions -- a decision to go to war, or to vote against one's own interests, for example.

What can we do to negate the emotional impact of fear-based messages? The answer is actually pretty simple. People must learn not to respond to their first impulse, but rather, wait for all available information to become evident, and make a rational decision based on all of this information. That is a simple answer, although it may be difficult for many people to implement. Learning to manage one's emotions more rationally -- the Vulcans of Star Trek fame come to mind -- takes much practice for many people. For others, it comes more easily. But in either case, the old adage "practice makes perfect" applies. In fact, the ability to manage one's emotions, and especially frustrations, rationally and patiently, are a mark of maturity -- both emotional and moral maturity. Fear does not have to be a primitive or irrational emotion; it is only that way if we allow it to be.

October 5

Perspectives on Fear: Conditions of Worth

According to Carl Rogers' humanistic perspective, the key to becoming a mentally healthy person is unconditional positive regard, that is, having parents, or finding people, who have faith in you and believe that you are a good person. The flip side of unconditional positive regard is when conditions of worth are imposed upon a person. That means the person is only valued for pursuing certain interests, believing certain ideas, or behaving in certain ways. Conditions of worth are often imposed by parents and represent bad parenting practice according to Rogers, because they lead to pathological anxiety and futile attempts to please one's parents.

These ideas tie into some of the previously discussed ideas concerning fear. I mentioned that conservatives tend to have a world view that is based on the idea that most people are basically greedy and rotten. If a child's parents view their own child as inherently bad, someone who can only be saved from moral turpitude by civilizing and taming, it becomes impossible to give unconditional positive regard to the child. In that case, the only way to raise a child is to present certain standards of behavior to the child, and hope that the child will live up to those standards. Thus, conditions of worth become the norm for those who believe in humans having a sinful nature, that is, those with a socially conservative mindset.

Rogers' humanistic perspective, with its emphasis on unconditional positive regard, also suggests that parents employ a relatively lax discliplinary style, what has been termed either a permissive or nurturing parenting style, either of which allows the chld considerable latitude to explore life's possibilities and to develop special talents. This contrasts with the harsh discipline engendered by those fearful parents who insist on conditions of worth for their children. In other words, punishment, and the threat of punishment are employed by parents who fail to give their children unconditional positive regard. In some cases, the situation may seem so odious to the child, that satisfying the parents' conditions of worth may result in a sense of relief which Skinner called negative reinforcement. Also, there will be a tendency to leave the situation as soon as it is feasible, perhaps getting out of the parents' lives as soon as one turns 18 years old.

Although Rogers did not focus on fear much in his theory, then, it does play an important role in psychopathology. Those raised in a fearful home tend to develop anxiety disorders and/or depression, and those who continue not to find unconditional positive regard in adulthood are doomed to a lifetime of fear and depression. Relating this topic once again to political orientation, the conservative mindset -- people wanting to protect what is "theirs" and protecting it (money, freedom, religion, guns) from those who would "take it away" -- lends itself to relating to others in a fearful, untrusting modality, not allowing for the trust in human nature which giving unconditional positive regard requires. Thus, social conservatives tend to place conditions of worth on others, not only their own children, but all persons in one way or another. They tend o see each person, or at least each family, as independent and basically motivated by self-interest alone. They see the role of government as helping people protect what is "theirs." Such fear-based conditions of worth reinforce pathological tendencies toward anxiety, depression, and paranoia. At the same time, they make the person more susceptible to influence by fear-based political messages which reinforce the person's world view.

Progressives, in contrast to social conservatives, tend to view people as by-and-large good, and that government represents the collective will and efforts of the people to act in the public interest. Having faith in people allows social progressives to give each other unconditional positive regard, allowing people to develop their special talents and move toward self-actualization -- the fulfillment of one's own unique human potential. Research has indeed shown that those who are more self-actualized are more psychologically well as a general rule.

Of course, there are many complicating factors, so that it is a great overgeneralization to assert that social conservatives are psychologically unwell and unactualized, while social progressives are psychologically well and more actualized. The main difference is that progressives have faith in people, while conservatives do not as a whole, but may compensate by having greater faith in religion, government, or military institutions than do progressives, for example. Progressives, on the other hand, may view religious, government, or military institutions with skepticism, depending on what they see, so that these may be a great source of distress for social progressives, while at the same time, a great source of pride and comfort for social conservatives. Such appears to be the case currently here in the United States. Social conservatives also may express life satisfaction with what the have and their sense of security that they can keep what they value, while social progressives may be basically happy people yet continue to express dissatisfaction that society has not dealt with life's inequities or the hardships faced by some people. That is, the source of well-being for social conservatives most likely lies in one's personal circumstances, while social progressives find social conditions to be an important source of well-being also.

October 2

Perspectives on Fear: The Vicious Cycle

The cognitive perspective in psychology deals with how our mental processes, mostly thought processes, but also feelings, affect our well-being and our behavior. Cognitive therapies attempt to change thought patterns to become more adaptive, so that negative emotional consequences will not occur. The premise of cognitive therapy is that psychopathology results from irrational, negativistic thought patterns. Albert Ellis, the originator of a form of cognitive therapy called Rational Emotive Therapy, has an "ABC" model of psychopathology, which explains at least anxiety disorders and anxiety-realted aspects of disorders, plus depression quite well. The "A" stands for a negative activating event, some bad event which triggers problematic thoughts, feelings, and behavior. The "B" stands for an irrational belief system, typically some sort of catastrophic thinking, which is induced by the negative activating condition. The "C" stands for emotional consequences, feelings such as anxiety, fear, sadness, loneliness, or depression. The emotional consequences, in turn, reinforce the irrational belief system, creating a sort of vicious cycle, one which may result in a self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, President Bush and others in his administration believe that terrorism is an imminent likelihood, creating massive fear of terrorism, and anxiety over terrorism, reinforcing the fear of terrorism by motivating them to search for evidence of terrorism, and to proactively fight terrrorism by sending military troops to foreign nations perceived to be producers of terrorists, in order to fight them where they live. Thus, we now have the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq to deal with, which rather than making us more safe, are in all likelihood making us less safe by creating more terrorists and anti-U.S. sentiment, while draining the U.S. emotionally and financially. It's all part of the vicious cycle of fear.

I am reminded of Franklin Roosevelt's famous words: "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." While I was growing up, that sentence must have been presented as though it was said to motivate Americans during World War II, because that is the context in which I thought it was made. Listening to the Thom Hartmann show has corrected that misperception. Roosevelt actually made the statement during his first inaugural address in reference to the Great (Republican) Depression. Now, we face potentially a similar economic crisis. The effects of fear can be seen in the recent actions of Congress. There is a strong push for a top-down attempt to stop the financial crisis from worsening, by infusing $700 billion into the financial industry. It's another example of trickle down economics, an approach I fundamentally disagree with. Apparently, the great majority of the United State's citizens, and the majority of Congress members disagree with this approach, as well, since public disapproval of the Bailout Plan is very high, and the initial attempt to pass the bill failed. However, fear of what could happen "if something isn't done soon" continues to drive Congress to compose some sort of Bailout Plan, but one with more protections and benefits for the public than the original plan. Actually, this is something of a negative reinforcement situation, as discussed in the previous post. We need some sort of quick fix in order to allevaite our fears. Whether or not such actions will lead toward a long-term solution is another question. What is clear is that we need to regulate the financial industry much more than it has been, and make it easier to put money in the hands of consumers, rather than letting the financial industry rob the public blind.

Members of the public are subject to the same processes that politicians are. Thus, in times of government generated fear, in the present case by war, threats of terrorism and economic crisis, anxiety disorders, and depression rates are exacerbated. (In fact, depression rates have been increasing worldwide for several decades.) Consequently, through the vicious feedback loop, people's irrational belief systems that the world is a dangerous and scary place, with bad guys calling the shots, are being reinforced, leading to redoubled efforts to either fight the perceived source of anxiety, or flee from it (fight or flight syndrome). Either approach is probably a mistake. We need reasoned action, and a cooperative approach in order to alleviate these problems. Actually, we need more of a "Bend and Bond" response, which researchers have recently found to be more characteristic of females under stress, as opposed to the masculine "Fight or Flight" response to stress. We need to treat terrorism as an international crime problem, involving the public, police, spy and inverstigatory agencies. And we need to treat the Great Bank Robbery of the United States by its own bankers as a systemic problem, one which requires major systemic changes in the way that financial institutions and business works, although appropriate punishment of those most responsible wouldn't hurt, either.

The bottom line is that overly fearful thoughts lead to dysfunctional fearful actions, either aggressive actions or withdrawal, and emotional disorders such as phobias, panic disorder, generalized anxiety, or obsessive-compulsive disorder, as well as depression. Those who believe that the world is a scary, dangerous place, are susceptible to being caught in this vicious cycle. What sort of people believe that the world is a scary, dangerous place? Basically, those would be people who take a dim view of the world and human nature, which includes a variety of people, but primarily those on the conservative side of the political spectrum, who are preoccupied, for instance, with protecting our nation from foreign threats, even when there are no credible threats, and protecting their money and liberty from government, even when the government has made it possible for them to earn money, by providing them with education and infrastructure, and the government defines and protects their liberties. When people such as these gain power, their actions tend to make the world indeed become a more dangerous, scary place. That is the irony of the vicous cycle of fear.

September 29

Perspectives on Fear: Negative Reinforcement and Threat of Punishment

This is the first of a series of posts about the use of fear-based messages in politics. Each of several psychological perspectives has something to teach us about why such messages are used, especially by right-wing politicians and preachers.

The behavioral perspective in psychology focuses on how our behaviors are learned. One of the most important ways in which we learn, say behaviorists, is through operant conditioning, a term coined by B .F. Skinner for learning through consequences. B. F. Skinner identified three types of consequence which can influence our learning processes. One is positive reinforcement, which is the use of reward. Positive reinforcement is favored by Skinner; it is a technique to be used as much as possible. It teaches desirable behavior with no negative consequences; everybody is happy, both the rewarder and the rewarded. The second type of consequence is negative reinforcement. This form of operant conditioning represents escape from an unpleasant situation. This is a cruel form of operant conditioning which requires putting people in an unpleasant situation -- such as prison, torture, or other confinement, for example. This is something which should never be done, according to behaviorists such as Skinner. The third type of operant conditioning is the use of punishment, an unpleasant consequence for an undesirable behavior, in an attempt to stop the undesirable behavior. Punishment is viewed as something to be used sparingly and with caution, and corporal punishment is to be avoided.

The threat of punishment uses fear to induce people to conform. Political conservatives tend to be very adept at using fear in this way. For example, vote for Bush's Wall Street bailout plan, or else our economy will collapse. Invade Muslim nations to fight terror over there, or they will bring their terror over here. Vote Republican, or we will be under constant attack by terrorists. Vote for Republicans, or your taxes will be raised and your hard-earned money will be taken away from you and wasted by those greedy, incompetent, socialist, bleeding heart liberals. Government is bad; government is not to be trusted; therefore, entrust the government to us, say the Republicans. Ronald Reagan was fond of saying, "The nine scariest words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" Then he became President, and he didn't help. The conservative meme is negative, negative, negative. These threat-of-punishment messages clearly work, and have been used for many years by Republicans to convince voters to vote for their candidates.

There is another way in which fear-based messages employ operant conditioning -- negative reinforcement. This is a more subtle application of fear-based messaging. One simple example is the promise to lower taxes. Taxes are seen by many taxpayers as an unpleasant burden, so if one votes for a candidate who lowers taxes, the taxpayer experiences negative reinforcement when the taxes are lower. Of course, taxes can only be lowered so much before they become ridiculously low. Also, politicians who lower taxes tend to raise other fees in order to compensate for the reduced revenue when taxes are lowered. However, the fee increases are kept "hush hush" and given as little publicity as possible by the politicians who raise them, lest they be seen as hypocritical tax raisers. Another example is having the nation under constant alert from terrorist threat. We have those silly terrorist alert levels to remind us that terrorists may be in our midst. We must be ever-wary of potential terrorists. This puts the public in an unpleasantly, constantly stressful situation. Relief from this situation comes in the form of "strong on defense" conservative politicians who promise to keep us safe from terrorist, or other, threats by proactive use of our military. By making people feel safer, they are subjected to negative reinforcement. Thus, both threat of punishment and negative reinforcement are simultaneously used in conjunction when such fear-based messages are employed, a sort of political double whammy which is very effective at getting a substantial portion of the electorate to vote for conservatives.

My next post will apply the cognitive perspective in psychology to the use of fear based messages.