Confrontation of inner self

DON’T BE A REPLICA BE THE ORIGINAL

2010-12-18T21:29:00.002Z

So you happen to have a view or opinion that others disagree with, you’re strong in your mind and confident within yourself. You would be seen as the Alpha amongst society, you feel like an Alpha because you don’t feel you have to challenge others but can rise to the challenges. You don’t need to prove that you’re intelligent, attractive and can make your way in this world with determination, not giving up and confronting the fear. Now, this means from time to time there will be others, usually Beta (middleman) persons who want to challenge you and your ideals. If you truly are an Alpha, you will take on this challenge and it won’t break your spirit, it will only make you stronger. That doesn’t mean you cannot open your mind enough to change position and ideals, to change how you behave and what you believe. Those who are truly Alpha and truly secure will not feel those insecurities of the average man, but life will challenge this the most. Those who suffer with insecurity will do their best to bring you down and break that strong spirit… why? Because you are secretly all that they wish they could be for various reasons, and it seems the Beta and Omega (lower man) will never feel the way you do. Now lets not confuse Alpha with dominance and Omega with Submissive. You can still be an Omega man or woman who is assertively dominant in the bedroom and yet submissive when it comes to decision making on the shopping. There are so many various and wonderful combinations of people, this is just set out to look at the basics underlying an area of human nature that fascinates me.

People in our social network today (in western civilisation) somehow manage to build groupings of friends and family, and yet still choose to have one partner and hopefully that single partner for all of their lives. This is an ideal, and reality only shows that people change partners regularly, just as much as their personalities change (which is argued to be every 7 years or so, hence the 7 year itch). How do we choose our partners through our position in the hierarchic community? We see so often if this pairing isn’t right on both levels of Alpha, Beta, Omega and Dominant, Sub-Dominant and Submissive meaning things can go wrong without great effort. For example; A woman who is an Omega female with a submissive mentality to all situations would be the easier type of person to be manipulated by even those of the Beta Submissive level males, than anther Omega Submissive male. It is said and Alpha Dominant females find male genitalia sexually arousing, at all times, that she will have a higher sex drive than the average female. Whereas the Beta Sub-Dominant female will see male genitalia as a desirable object when aroused but before hand, something that does not particularly excite anything, yet could be exciting. The Omega Submissive female finding genitalia as something rude, embarrassing or even repulsive or for purely procreative reasons. This is very similar in the male categories and does not include discovery emotional and social situations and factors such as depression which can reduce sex drive. Do we subconsciously already obtain a natural order to how to progress, respond, match, mismatch and develop? How do we know we are not wasting our time with partners?

Isn’t it strange how in couplings often we see an Alpha (someone say beautiful, interesting, intelligent, confident and contented) with someone Beta (someone who wishes to be the Alpha, admires, envies and challenges the Alpha) - often clashing in personalities and often with frustration, aggression, upset and inadequacies involved at some points. Sometimes as socially and internally personalities change, these clashes can be worked through and as each partner rubs off on the other, people can become their better selves. So, when the clashes go wrong, it seems to me that it’s a Beta becoming a bully to feel as equal to the Alpha (equality is important), again here we are not involving the dominant or submissive yet. Once this poor coupling equality falls apart and one or both parties realise it is “Just not working”, oddly the Beta of the pairing seeks a new partner who is very similar to the Alpha (often in looks and small interests) and yet understands that this time they will choose someone with a social hierarchy similar to theirs, they could not meet the challenge of the Alpha, so take the less challenging. The Alpha however, feels that they do not want to seek an replica of an ideal, but still seeks that ideal, refusing to settle for anything less, and seeking new horizons. Often sometimes leading to those of characters just as strong to themselves and maybe totally different to the previous partner. Still, Alpha’s will find it hard to find another Alpha (someone equal) in a world that contains so many Beta people. Could it also be that Alpha’s often enjoy the company of those who do not challenge them, but those who will accept what they believe and create? Is this where the dominant and submissive aspects of personality play an important part?

Dominant Alpha’s may well enjoy the partnership of a person who is of lower hierarchy and yet can play dominant roles in various areas of life, or of someone who is an Alpha that is submissive in various areas, due to being secure enough to let go. For example; an Alpha woman who enjoys being with a Beta man - she is the most forward thinking, most able to deal with the challenges life presents, most able to feel comfortable within herself, and the man being dominant in decision making, dominant in the workload, or the cooking and so on, could it be that they rub off on each other and become a perfect match, not so much equal in all areas, but a greater understanding of each other and acceptance of who someone is? With so many darker days drawing close with the economical crisis and normal social positions being challenged, work becoming less available, poverty forcing decisions and actions of people… We are slowly being forced to not only show our true colours, but also see who will stick it out in a partnership or situation when challenged. As the saying goes “when money troubles come in, love goes out the door” (or something like that), and so we finally see clearly how people are starting to choose their partnerships, what people may tolerate to keep finances rolling, or have that extra support. How honest are people being? What level are people forced to place themselves in hierarchy and at what levels do people feel inadequate or deal with the challenge? How many people are faking it? The least I can know in such corruption and falsity is - I am not a replica, I am an original and have no fear in voicing my mind and rising to a challenge if I see fit, how do you see yourself and how honest are you with who you are and what you want in life, and how you deal with the challenges that come along?

Maintain a life that is too painful to live.

2010-02-01T13:56:00.002Z

Often still in debate is the issue of euthanasia. The British government seem to be miles behind most progressive countries, and euthanasia seems another reason to keep us in the dark ages of suffering until the day we die. After working for many years in the care sector of the elderly as well as overlooking others who have suffered greatly through terminal illness, I believe myself that humans in my country and the world over should at least be given the choice in opting for a peaceful, dignified death. There is much confusion from those who disagree with giving people the choice, their ignorance is ever present and if only someone with the knowledge of euthanasia was given the chance to explain and clarify what those who appose it are ignorant of, then maybe the thousands of people who suffer due to the lack of freedom of choice in this country may have some hope. I do not plan to be starving, covered in my own faeces and spitting it at my family while my brain eats itself away. I would rather die years before that happens, and yet I know people who work with this, see this happen everyday, all over Britain. It’s a harsh fact that fearful ignorant people of the UK who appose euthanasia refuse to accept and admit is something we can prevent and that will NOT mean death for ulterior motives. I shall clarify here.

Definition of Euthanasia.

· Euthanasia – The intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit.
· Voluntary euthanasia – When the person who is killed has requested to be killed.
· Non-voluntary euthanasia – When the person who is killed made no request and gave no consent.
· Involuntary euthanasia – When the person who is killed made an expressed wish to the contrary.
· Assisted suicide – Someone provides an individual with the information, guidance, and means to take his or her own life with the intention that they will be used for this purpose. When it is a doctor who helps another person to kill himself or herself it is called “physician assisted suicide.”
· Euthanasia by Action – Intentionally causing death by not providing necessary and ordinary care or food or water.

There are other types of euthanasia of which many families and doctors do carry out privately and in secret in the UK and other countries, where required painkillers and medication of a harmful level are requested to relieve the suffering of a dieing person. Also something that can fall into this category of euthanasia is right that a person can request to not be resuscitated and refuse blood transfusions (depending on their religion).

“If they (doctors) prescribe pain killers that may increase the possibility of death so long as their specific intention was not to end life. Doctors should do everything they can to reduce pain, but not to administer drugs to end life, I think we go over a line then.” Joseph Lieberman (From a March 19th 2001 article in the Post-Intelligencer Washington Bureau.

From this quote we can already see the fear that the public may be under if euthanasia was legalised or if doctors took things into their own hands, but also a pressure from the public onto the doctors to not “go over a line” which would mean that when a doctor can see a patient in pain and a need to die peacefully, he cannot fulfil his patients wishes without the public disapproving and the law giving out a sentence.

The Law.

Throughout the world euthanasia is illegal. However one country that is not included is Holland. In Britain, United States, Europe and every other country on this planet including Africa and Australia anything that contains the above definitions of euthanasia, is against the law and the penalty to pay for a crime in euthanasia can result as much as a life sentence. However, today many courts will give the person/s involved a fair hearing before deciding an appropriate sentence.
Here is a list of laws and actions that are so different to the rest of the world and show us statistically the results of legalisation of euthanasia in Holland:

· About 9% of all deaths in 1990 were a result of physician assisted suicide or euthanasia.
· In 1990 Dutch doctors practice active euthanasia by lethal injections resulting in 96.6% of all deaths actively caused by a physician.
· For patients who die of a lethal overdose of painkillers, the decision to administer the lethal does of drugs was not discussed with 61% of those receiving it, even though 27% were fully competent.
· The Board of the Royal Dutch Medical Association endorsed euthanasia on newborns and infants with extreme disabilities.
· Well over 10,000 citizens now carry “Do Not Euthanize Me” cards in case they are admitted to a hospital unexpectedly.
· Cases exist where doctors administer assisted suicide for people determined to be “chronically” depressed.

Oregon is the only state that has legalised physician assisted suicide where these facts where discovered:
· A recent Health Division report of assisted suicides reveals that not one patient had documented uncontrollable pain. All of the patients who requested assisted suicide cited psychological and social concerns as their primary reasons.
· Although numerous studies in the Netherlands and elsewhere report an assisted suicide failure rate up to 25%, Oregon has yet to report even one complication in over four years. This failure to report complications have led to even euthanasia advocates themselves to call the credibility of Oregon reporting on assisted suicide into question.
· Virtually every established medical and nursing organization in the United States declares physician assisted suicide is unethical.
This again shows through these facts that there seems to be a fear from extensive research that euthanasia is something their own culture cannot contain and would so then see it as “unethical”.

Below I will give arguments of case studies where it seems seriously damaging not to have legalised euthanasia in the UK.
“Euthanasia must change, says struck off doctor”

A report from The Guardian newspaper Wednesday September 28th 2005 on a retired GP who obtained pills to assist a friend’s suicide, the GMC (General Medical Council) says the 74 year old leading euthanasia campaigner “abused his position as a doctor”.
Briefly the newspaper wrote that, Dr. Michael Irwin was cautioned by police, after he admitted writing a prescription in his own name for temazepam, which he intended to give to his friend Patrick Kneen, who was dying of prostrate cancer. He also took pills he had prescribed for himself to counteract jetlag. Mr Kneen, a retired farmer in his late 70’s lived on the Isle of Man and even campaigned for the right of Euthanasia. By the time Dr. Irwin reached the island, his friend was too ill to take the pills and so ended up in a coma a few days later.
Kenneth Hobbs, the chairman of the panel, told the retired GP that he had breached the requirements of a medical practitioner to be “honest and trustworthy” by committing “the serious criminal offence” of possessing temazepan, a class C controlled drug, with intent to supply. Before the decision to strike him off, Dr. Irwin told the panel he had “never harmed a patient in my life and I certainly do not expect to harm anyone in the future. I assure you I will continue to campaign to see a change in the law to legalise doctor assisted suicide.” This seems to me so unjust and unfair for a doctor who is relieving and helping the pain and suffering of one man, to be punished so severely!

“Dutch legalise euthanasia.”

Reported by The Hague newspaper April 10th 2001. The topic being that the Netherlands had become the first country in the world to legalise euthanasia. It was reported that ‘as the senate voted 46-28, with one member absent, to endorse the legislation, an estimated 10,000 people protested outside, many signing hymns.
The bill allows doctors to kill patients with terminal diseases who are suffering “unbearably” if they request it. It regulates a practice discreetly used in Dutch hospitals and homes for decades, turning guidelines adopted by parliament in 1993 into legally binding requirements.
Rita Marker a spokeswoman for the International Task force on Euthanasia, speaking to CNN, called it a “chilling” development and said it would damage doctor-patient relationships. However, Tamora Langley, of the UK Voluntary Euthanasia Society, welcomes the news and said: “This is part of a broader development in Europe allowing people to make their own informed choices.” She said the strict requirements meant it “was in no way a license to kill.” The rules within this law pointed out in the newspaper are:
· The request would have to be made voluntarily, persisting and independently while the patient is of sound mind.
· Patients can however leave a written request for euthanasia, giving doctors the right to use their own discretion when patients become too physically or mentally ill to decide for themselves. (This is known as a ‘Living Will’)
The argument in this report is that it informs the reader very well of what has happened factually in Holland, however, the fact that it seems as though a lot of the public were against the senate’s decision seems a little worrying.

Either way all I can see if more evidence that euthanasia should be legalised. We euthanise our pets and animals, who we are often as attached to as any human friend. We save them their dignity. Countries that have supported euthanasia have only benefited and any evidence of mistreatment of the cause has been handled as any criminal offence would be. We entrust our doctors to deliver our children, and look at our private parts without sexually assaulting us, so why would suddenly these same people we entrust now with the personal and private aspects of our lives become criminals because we have an extra choice in death? If they seriously would kill us through cruel intentions or profit, then they would be characters of murder anyway, and they are still present in your lives today. Basically any argument against a person’s choice in euthanasia is rubbish, total incompetent insecure rubbish. The care of our health system would not change or lesson, in fact Holland is known to have a far better health system than the UK at present. After care and treatment and choices that doctors makes will occur anyway, regardless. Because those who are afraid of euthanasia are afraid they will not receive proper care, they need to realise, there is no proper care, no-one can ever love you as much as a family member, no doctor can give you quality of life only quantity and that’s the choice we have. People who are suffering should have a choice to end that suffering, and the sooner the better.

Please feel free to discuss any issues or concerns from this article with me.

Need or Greed

2009-12-04T00:53:00.000Z

Why is it that today with each generation, the distance seems vaster? As a child I never could relate to anyone my own age. My head always stuck in a book, or looking to the adults to fill my mind with their lessons, their wisdom, their mistakes and experiences of life. People used to ponder, people used to think beyond themselves. It’s not just a generational issue; the shallowness of mankind has always been present. It’s just this world at present seems so different in attitude to the hopeful, loving, eager, revolutionary 1960s, the classified, repressed, simple 1950s. Each era seems to carry its own problems, but, today there seem to be not only the problems of every era past, but carrying new confusions, a lack of understanding of what it means to be human, what it means to be kind - kindness being valued above finance. Morally we know its there, but socially we are lead into a structure of dominating power figures, who lack respect, yet dictate what we can or cannot choose (we in turn become them in our small day to day worlds), in turn our environment influences how we think, and as every child is born, they are born into environments that are either so poor, they strive money to relieve the pressures and stress of normal living standards (need), or, born into enough money to provide for every social and personal need… greed that can be fed on one level or another, need and greed – Which one are you?

Where are all those really cool, intellectual, interesting, integral musicians and composers? You know - the Bob Dylans, the John Lennons, the Don Mcleans? Why is it those who carry essence of those wonderful political, emotional, sensitive musicians seem to be either in the older generations playing clubs and pubs, maybe travelling a bit, but never recognised enough to spread a message of love and honesty, or close enough to question the things wrong with our society and actually help encourage society to makes changes. Why are the only choices we have for media presented in trash TV, nonsense films, plastic music and the social groups of the internet – all invested by posing, vanity, ego infested leeches? I am sick of so little choice and so little change and hope for my generation and those younger. I don’t want Jeremy Kyle to be the only person youngsters seem to listen to, or mock. I know I’m not alone in these thoughts, but I feel alone because so many are helpless, while many are still able. Shouldn’t someone stand up and say something, do something?

When we’re old, unable to look externally beautiful no matter how much surgery or cosmetic help, when we can no longer hold our muscles enough to save embarrassment, it would no longer matter how beautiful, rich or great we once were, we will all be slowly turning into a nothingness. Then is when people realise what they should have realised long ago. Its too late, but I suppose thankfully we wouldn’t have to live long in regret before we die. Realistically, the truth here, is yes more than likely most of us will die alone, undignified and vulnerable. A harsh reality that so many young people ignore and cannot fathom happening to them one day. I could tell someone “If you don’t find someone to love and cherish, someone to be kind to now while you’re young, so you can have children, who when you are old and frail will help look after you, or be there when you need them, if you can love them” my reply is “So what, I have plenty of time yet” – but we don’t. Women may have a biological clock, but men on average do not live as long as women, so if they choose to wait later to have children, by the time they need the help in old age, those children will barely be out of school – still helpless, still needing a parents support, without the experience, the life to know how to deal with a dependant dad. I see what waiting can do. Imagine a worse case. My Grandfather is 80 and his wife is 38 – they have a 4 year old son. The problem. He will not be living much longer and his wife is on dialysis. She is ill and her chances of being able to cope alone with a teenager are slim. What quality of this world and environment is that child experiencing?

It takes just one person who gives something to someone through love, a few people who enjoy altruism, some people who want to care and be kind, and it only takes once for someone shallow and selfish to make that giving, that loving all the more harder. When people are pissed on, every time they are pissed on, their heart breaks a little bit, and they feel not only like never going to that altruistic, caring place again, but feel saddened by the reality they see in mankind. I am talking about those people who really genuinely do care and whatever situation, whatever state they are in – they try to help others wherever they can without expecting the thank you, but just hoping someone will feel their love passed on. No-one is perfect, we are humans, but surely we could be better? Is this evolution or devolution; is society turning into this confusing mess because predictions of self-destruction are meant to come true? Why do people ever take for granted people when community is what we need? Even out closest friends can be those shallow people, who when the mask falls, deserts us when the going gets tough! “We live in a throw away society. If it breaks, throw it away. If a new one pops up, throw the old one away. If your puppy grows up to be a pain in the ass, just dump it, someone else will kill it. If your marriage isn’t working, he, get a divorce, throw them away and marry someone else, get sick of them, throw them away too” – (The Man In the Chair 2007).

Belief Systems and Phobia Prevention

2009-11-18T17:45:00.001Z

Is there a correlation between the incidence of pronounced coping strategies and adherence to a religious belief system?

I. Abstract

This paper describes an experiment to investigate the correlation between two groups as to the relative importance they attach to ritual as a means of preventing or avoiding fear. The first group was one that has sincere, Christian religious beliefs; the second group was composed of people who claimed to be atheist. The underlying assumption is that religious ritual might be an expression of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Thus the aim of the experiment is to examine the extent to which the practice of Christian religious rituals and atheist rituals compare in terms of this specific psychological function - the avoidance of fear.

The first step must be to offer a definition of OCD. I take that offered in DSM IV, which specifies several aspects that are critically important in its diagnosis, but nevertheless remain entirely subjective. These are:

1. Actions that are repetitive and formalised.
2. The subject feels driven to perform them.
3. The acts are performed to reduce distress, and are not an end in themselves.
4. The subject may recognise that the behaviour is unreasonable or unrealistic.
5. The subject finds the behaviour to be disturbing and attempts to resist or avoid situations where ritualising will become necessary.

This set of proposals would seem to necessarily include people of a strong religious disposition. OCD behaviour typically involves: washing, checking, ordering, concern with symmetry, counting, hoarding, repeating words silently or aloud. In religious ceremonies and practices, public and private, many of these features may be found.

II. Aims & Hypotheses

The aim of this investigation is discover whether a strong religious belief in an individual is indicative of pronounced tendency towards use of coping strategies.

First, it should be noted that the Literature has a marked tendency to refer to the strong term "obsessive compulsive disorder" (OCD). I prefer to use a weaker term that I have coined for this purpose: "pronounced coping strategy" (PCS). I suggest that the two are closely linked since both are used by the sufferer to prevent phobia. However, "OCD" has a precise clinical definition (see the reference to DMS IV in Section I, above), whereas PCS is a more generally applicable term that need not refer to a chronic condition. I therefore use the term "PCS" throughout as I do not wish to infer too strong a claim at this stage. This is particularly so because none of the subjects that participated in the experimental procedure I will describe were actually sufferers of OCD and it would be unethical to draw strong conclusions. However, I will continue to use "OCD" where I am referring to a work in the literature that explicitly uses the term.

Two hypotheses are offered. The first is a one-tailed alternative hypothesis that the Christians should score higher (i.e. show a stronger negative tendency to PCS) than atheists because they have a ritual based religion, which could possibly be viewed as a form of PCS or phobic presence. However, if the atheists score higher than the Christians this may be because they introduce some other form of ritual into their lives in order to compensate but without the group structure to support them and potentially mitigate the ritual. The interesting conclusion with regard to the latter would be that Christians are less prone to PCS because they draw some beneficial effect by participating in regular group ritual in an organised and controlled setting. Atheists on the other hand have no such group ritual to fall back and so draw on individual ritual without the controls that are implicit or explicit in the Christian ritual.

The second hypothesis in a null hypothesis. There will be no difference between Christians and atheists and that hence there is no link between religious ritual and PCS. If both groups score low then neither group has any discernible tendency towards PCS and Bowyer & Lienard's claim (2005, p.7) is supported. If both groups score high then both would be more prone to PCS or phobic presence. This would also support Bowyer & Lienard's claim (ibid.) Either of these conclusions would effectively discount religiosity as a factor in the development or externalisation of PCS.

The overall hypothesis is that the one-tailed alternative is more likely. Specifically that Christians will score higher due to the pervasive presence of Christian ritual in their personal lives. If this were to be the case then Smay's claim (2001, p.2) would be supported.

III. Review of Previous Research

It is clear from a literature search (principally conducted via the Internet, though with strict criteria concerning academic provenance) that there is very little in the academic corpus that approaches this particular topic. This impression is supported by at least one other researcher:

"There are substantial data exploring the link between religiousness and health, yet there is little consensus regarding the nature of the relationship between religiousness domains and mental health."
- (Salsman & Carlson, 2005, p.201)

The strongest empirical evidence is apparently provided by (Sica, 2002), but although this work is referenced it proved impossible to find other than in summary form, although it can be purchased over the Internet via the Journal of Behaviour Research & Therapy. However, some other researchers do make inferences that there is a relationship between the manifestation of OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) and religion.

"Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a multi-faceted psychiatric disease, which is characterized by persistent and distress-causing cognitions (obsessions) that trigger repetitive behaviors or mental acts such as washing and counting in the majority of patients (compulsions). These two psychopathological clusters are usually functionally connected and typically deal with themes of aggression, contamination, symmetry, order and religion." - (Moritz & Mühlenen, 2005, p.118)

Consider also the following. It is a modest claim, but it addresses the theme of this paper, and it is the philosophical corrollary of what I shall seek to demonstrate (or otherwise) by experiment, which the latter part of this paper will describe:

"The occasions for ritualized behaviors also vary, either contingencies such as illness or misfortune, life-stages like birth, initiation and death, or recurrent occasions such as seasonal changes. Finally, the connections between rituals and religious concepts are crucial in some cases (e.g. ancestor worship, Islamic prayer), or only peripheral (e.g. anti-witchcraft divination), or just absent (in “secular” rituals). It might seem imprudent to make any general statements about such a disparate set. Note, however, that our aim here is not to account for all these social occasions, for the reasons why they exist and why people find them of interest. Our aim is to account for the psychological salience of a particular feature they share, namely the performance of what we call ritualized actions." - (Boyer & Lienard, 2005 p.7)

However, some authors in addition what has been reported of Sica (ibid.) have made strong claims. For example, Portelli suggests that:

"The ritualistic attempted solutions can be 'repairing' or ‘preventive‘. This means that we were able to pin point two different types of obsessive compulsive rituals; the first is carried out to intervene and repair after a feared event has taken place, so as not to feel in danger, thus it is oriented towards the past; the second is focused on anticipating the frightening situation or event to propitiate the best outcome or to avoid the worst. However, recent empirical-experimental results revealed that there exists 2 main variants of preventive rituals: Rational-preventive and propitiatory magical thinking rituals. Rational-preventive rituals are specific actions put into action that arise from an irrational belief that doing so, the subject would prevent certain situations he/she fears, such as contamination, lose of control, lose of energy and so forth. The propitiatory rituals are a form of magical thinking highly linked to fatalistic religious beliefs, superstitious convictions, confidence in extraordinary powers or in faith and so forth." - (Portelli, 2004, p.43)

Regrettably, Portelli offers no experimental data or other empirical evidence with which to support his claim although he does repeatedly refer to empirical evidence being available. Others too have remarked on this fact (Arezzo, 2004, p.92.). One is driven to assume that Portelli's work is a preliminary paper and not a full account of his research.

Smay on the other hand presents a thoughtful philosophical piece which makes reference to extensive data that have been gathered regarding OCD as a pathology (Smay, 2001, p.4.) and leads on to discuss physiological structures and their role in OCD in particular and ritualised behaviour in general. Although it is not relevant here she refers to Greist's reporting of methods of psycho surgery, which involve severing connections between the Basal Ganglia and Frontal Cortex (Greist, 1992, 1998)

Smay's clear belief is that the origins of OCD and ritualised behaviour in general are related and she makes explicit link between OCD and religion:

"In an influential paper, Fiske and Halsam (1997) begin with a description of a man in an unfamiliar country. We observe him to be dressed all in red in a red doorway, washing his hands six times in six different basins that have been arranged meticulously. His eyebrows are plucked bare, and as he washes, he repeats the same phrase, occasionally tapping his earlobe with his right index finger. Their question to the hypothetical observer is: Is this man a priest performing a sanctified ritual? Or is he afflicted with obsessive compulsive disorder? Is he normal, or mad?" - (Smay, 2001, p.2, et passim)

However, there is a claim that participation in a group ritual, such as a religious service is significantly different:

"While individual ritualists (especially patients) may feel great anxiety at the prospect of not going through the ritual sequence, participants in a cultural ritual are likely to participate (among other reasons) to the extent that the particular sequence meets a minimal threshold of relevance." - (Portelli, 2005, p.43)

It should be noted that this casts doubt on whether religious ritual has any significant connection with OCD:

"The idea of 'scaling' would also predict all sorts of interesting phenomena that are simply not observed, for instance that people who become more religious would tend to become more obsessive, or that OCD patients would tend to be more religious than controls, that children during early childhood should be more interested in religious ritual than at other stages of development, etc. Although there are connections between certain forms of religious practice and obsessionality … they fail to support these general conjectures." - (ibid., 2005, p.43)

But this fails to recognise that there is a difference between the public and private execution of ritual in that the underlying psychological needs may not be the same and the intensity of the ritual may not be the same. One sort of ritual might not "suit" a given individual, whereas it might another. In fact, the OCD subject commits themselves to a form of therapy only when the escalation between the phobic perception and prevention of the compulsive rituals has driven them to lead an impossible life. Before this stage, they live believing that the ritual is a good strategy with which to allay their fears (Portelli, 2004, p.90).

Little substantive empirical research appears to have been conducted in this area, although several researchers, as noted above, allude to it, However, recent research by the University of Parma, in Italy, has indicated, though not conclusively, that there is a strong link between religiosity and vulnerability to OCD (Sica, 2002).

Therefore I would further justify the pursuit of this research based on the argument presented by Douglas (1982). He points out that many rituals seem to focus around such themes as: pollution and purification, danger and protection, the possible danger of intrusion from other people, the use of particular colors or specific numbers, the construction of an ordered environment (Dulaney & Fiske, 1994). A ritual space or instruments are described as “pure” or “safe” (or on the contrary as the locus of concentrated “pollution”) or the point of the ritual is to “purify” people or objects, to “cleanse” mind or body, etc.. In cultural rituals, this concern with pollution and cleansing is so prevalent that it has been considered a foundation of religious ritual. This claim alone emphasises the relevance of my proposal to survey religious and atheist groups in order to shed more light on the issue.

In concluding this review of the literature one must draw the conclusion that there has been little research done in the area that I propose to investigate. Certainly, in spite of allusions to the contrary, there is no substantial of evidence of any empirical research - although absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Therefore there is little for me to call on by way of substantial evidence from previous research, although the claims by Bowyer and Smay will prove to be of relevance when describing the hypotheses and assessing the results of the experiment.

IV Experimental Method & Design

1 Method
This research employed conventional survey techniques to gather raw data which were then be analysed using established statistical methods, including measures of standard deviation and correlation analysis. Thus:

· There were be two subject groups.
· The one group was be Christian, the other was atheist.
· A survey questionnaire was designed with its focus on the concept of ritual.
· Care was be taken in wording the questionnaire for ethical reasons and to avoid possible linguistic bias.
· A small pilot test was be conducted using a small sample to test the overall rigor of the method and design.
· The results of the pilot test informed necessary changes to the method and design, including modifications to the survey questions and the structure of the questionnaire.
· The primary survey was conducted in carefully controlled environments.
· The collected data was collated and analysed.
· Relevant conclusions were drawn and substantiated.

2 Design
The design of this experiment uses independent measures because two different subject groups are used, each with different beliefs and being tested under different conditions.

The questionnaire to be used in the experiment's primary survey is given in Appendix A. The scoring values for each question are shown in situ. The corresponding questionnaire for the pilot survey and its scoring values are given in Appendix B.

The questionnaire was divided into seven categories of questions, respectively covering the subject's:

· Past Experience Q1-4
· Present Experience Q5-8
· Habits Q9-11
· Daily Routines Q12-15
· Daily Rituals Q16-21 & Q27
· Anxieties Q22-26
· Future Q28-29

The categorisation system was deliberately not made explicit on the questionnaire. Note that Q8 and Q26 are the same question, but worded differently, as a partial test for the subject giving untruthful or inconsistent information. Q23 was a qualitative question designed to ease the subject into thinking about their fears, hence Q23 was an unscored question.

In the primary survey the maximum possible score for a given subject was 50, the minimum 0. An arbitrary scoring system breaks down as follows:

· 0-12 there is very little likelihood of the subject having PCS
· 13-25 there is a negative tendency towards PCS
· 26-38 there is a positive tendency towards PCS
· 39-50 there is a strong likelihood of PCS.

For the pilot survey however, a random set of questions was drawn from the main survey question set. The maximum score for any given subject in the pilot test was 10, the minimum again being 0. The arbitrary scoring system for the pilot test, thus breaks down as follows:

· 0-2 there is very little likelihood of the subject having PCS
· 3-5 there is a negative tendency towards PCS
· 6-8 there is a positive tendency towards PCS
· 9-10 there is a strong likelihood of PCS.

In both the pilot and primary surveys each subject was assigned a unique identifying number. Those subjects who are atheist were assigned a three-digit number beginning with "0" (001, 002, etc.). The Christian subjects were assigned a three-digit number beginning with "1" (101, 102, etc.). The individual subject numbers were assigned in the order in which subjects from each group presented to be interviewed. At no point was the subject number disclosed to the individual subject. Once the data had been collected and collated, there was no mechanism for re-associating subjects, with their subject numbers. The age and gender of each subject was also recorded on the questionnaire. There was also provision to make ad hoc notes.

The process for interviewing Christians and atheists was the same, although the locations were different. The Christians were interviewed on the church premises and the atheists were interviewed at Weymouth College.

Prior to the actual interview, each subject was given a standard consent form to sign (Appendix C). They retained one copy for their own records, and one was retained by the interviewer. On the subject's copy were contact details whereby they could discover more about the experiment, or confirm the interviewer's bona fides.

On completion of the interview, each subject was told the purpose of the research. It was felt unlikely that any subject would be upset by the interview. None the less, it was assumed that if any Christian subject were to be upset then they would be able derive support from within their congregation. The atheists from were given cards advising them of counselling services within Weymouth College.

The materials used in the experiment were entirely conventional: pens, paper, desk and computer. Microsoft Word was used to write all research related correspondence and other documents. Microsoft Excel was used to create the necessary tables and charts and perform the statistical analyses. Adobe Illustrator was used to layout the questionnaires.

The independent variables that could affect the experiment are "Christians" belonging to a specific congregation, "atheists" belonging to a specific college community, "gender" and "age".

The dependent variable is the measure of the "tendency towards" PCS, determined by a point score for each subject for overall comparison between Christians and atheists. A high score indicating a strong negative tendency towards PCS, a low score indicating the converse.

The confounding variables are the subject's "honesty", "amiability", "personal background", "psychological mood", "environmental factors" (which include the facilities designated as the test environments), the "willingness" of the relevant authorities to allow the experiment to take place on their premises and the "availability" of the required subjects.

Another confounding variable, over which I had no control, was how religious a given subject was..

The primary controls in place was the use of standardised instruction for each subject, the use of consent forms, a debriefing procedure, the sequence in which questions were asked and types of questions that were asked.

There was no control group, though time permitting an entirely randomly selected group could have been interviewed and their results compared with the principal subject groups.

Ideally, the subject groups would have been representative of the population overall, but given the very small sample sizes (16 in each group) this was not likely to have been the case.

3 Evaluation of Design
It was hoped that most of the adverse environmental factors could be negated through the use of controlled environments. However, such control was harder to achieve for the atheists than for the Christians because the former, drawn from a student community, was much harder to gather together at a single date and time. It is possible that an adverse environmental effect was therefore experienced with the student group, as it was not possible to use the same facilities for all.

The use of the pilot survey was intended to assist in reducing practice effects on the part of the researcher, as well as helping to assess the overall validity of the method and design.

The risk of fatigue effects was minimal since the questionnaire was be short enough to be completed twenty minutes. Indeed, most interviews lasted a little over ten minutes.

Problems were expected to arise if particular subjects were sensitive to ethical or bias factors. For example, an atheist interviewer might inadvertently signal their scepticism to a Christian subject. It was intended that objectivity and professional detachment would reduce such risk to a minimum. The converse is of course true and to be equally guarded against. It was decided to cloak the purpose of the research in such a way as to deny any possible inference that might be drawn by a subject that this research somehow seeks to detract from the integrity of the Christian faith. In fact, relatively little cloaking was required.

There was always a risk that a particular subject might guess that the focus of the experiment was research into phobias, thereby giving rise to demand characteristics. However, every attempt was been made to avoid this situation by not referring to terms such as "phobia", "PCS", or "religion" throughout the survey. Instead the less weighted terms "routine", "ritual", "anxiety" and "coping" were used.

4. Pilot Survey
A pilot survey was conducted in accordance with the broad method and designed detailed above. The completed questionnaires being given in Appendix D. The subject group was comprised of three Christians and three atheists that were know to the researchers and so were easy to access at short notice. They were each interviewed in accordance with the method set out above. The results obtained are given in Table 1.

Table 1. Pilot Test Individual Scores

Subject Score

Number Age Gender 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total

001 17 F 1 1 0 0 0 0 2
002 56 M 0 1 1 2 1 1 6
003 39 F 1 1 0 3 3 1 9
101 51 M 0 0 1 1 0 1 3
102 25 F 0 0 1 3 1 1 6
103 39 F 1 0 0 2 3 0 6

Table 2 shows the overall scores for the pilot survey, with the mean, median and mode scores for each group. A simple bar chart illustrating these data is given in Figure 1.

Table 2. Pilot Survey Scores

Group Score Mean Median Mode

Atheists 17 5.7 6 6
Christians 15 5.0 6 6

The results are on a small scale to the actual experiment, and use only a small section of the questions. Therefore no substantive conclusions can or should be drawn. The principal aims of the pilot survey was only to test the overall design and methodology and to obtain a snapshot of what the final results might look like. Therefore it is only for a sense of completeness at this stage that it can be seen that the atheists scored higher than the Christians, which according to the hypotheses should indicate a higher tendency towards PCS. However, this is a very crude analysis and in terms of mean, median and mode, the atheists and Christians appear very similar.

5. Experimental Procedure

5.1. Recruiting of Subjects
A number of churches in the Weymouth area were contacted with a view to obtaining Christian subjects. St Aldhelms was the first to respond. The vicar was very enthusiastic and an appointment was made to visit him to give more information, discuss the provision of facilities and recruiting volunteers and devising a suitable test schedule. The vicar was given an introductory letter (Appendix E), and shown the full questionnaire, but was given no indication as to the scoring mechanism and was not allowed to retain a copy. He was asked to sign a consent form (also Appendix E) and shown the consent form that subjects from his Church would be required to sign. He was most enthusiastic and readily agreed to help. He recommended that we contact his curate to ask that we might attend his service on 10am service on Sunday 12 March. He also sent an email to his curate informing him of the proposal. I also sent the curate a letter (also Appendix E) and arranged subsequent details through him.

In order to attract atheist subjects from within Weymouth College, recruitment posters (Appendix F) were put up detailing the date, time and location for the interviews. A change was made to the original intention that atheist subjects should first contact me to arrange interviews. Instead they were simply asked to present themselves at the required time and place.

5.2. Christian Group
On the morning of 12 March, the curate of St Aldhelms was shown and agreed the consent form and the questionnaire. He made available two private rooms (the Vestry and the Prayer Room) in which the interviews were to be conducted. Both were already equipped with suitable tables and chairs. The curate proposed telling the congregation of the need for volunteers towards the end of the service. He had already prepared a slide to display for the purpose of making the announcement. He checked the details of the consent form and questionnaire. As an aside, he asked if I would send him an email offering a personal (as opposed to psychological) view of the service I was about to witness.

Towards the end of the service the curate made the promised announcement, together with a slide bearing the question, "Do Atheists have a means of compensating for a lack of religious belief?" Later he admitted that this was probably not the best way to present the matter. In a future experiment I would request to see any similar notice before it was displayed to a potential group of subjects. With some encouragement from the curate, the required sixteen subjects volunteered, but it was a close run thing. But this is probably not so much because of a lack of willingness to take part as confusion. The Reverend told us later that several people had told him that they thought his slide was offering a subject on which they should meditate in the week.

When the service finished, I moved to the front of the church, and the subjects were arbitrarily divided into two groups of eight. I was assisted in conducting the interviews by a friend who had agreed to help and we both interviewed one group of eight each.

As each subject entered the interview room to which they had been allocated, they were invited to take a seat and were told that the experiment was designed to compare the coping strategies used by Christians with those used by atheists, and that the questions would mainly require "Yes/No" answers. They were then shown the consent form and invited to read it and then sign and date, it if they wished to proceed. It was made clear to them that their identity was wholly confidential and that they were free to leave, should they wish, at any point during the interview. Having signed the consent form, the subject were given a copy of it and were told how they could contact myself or Weymouth College for further details, should they require them.

The actual interview was then performed, the researcher asking the questions in turn from 1 - 29 and entering the subject's responses in the appropriate boxes on the questionnaire. Most subjects were quickly responsive with their answers. However, a few asked for clarification, some gave quite elaborate answers. Once all the questions had been asked, the subjects were given an explanation that the experiment was not only based on coping strategies, but about the incidence of pronounced coping strategies and adherence to a religious belief system. All subjects took this information with considerable intrigue and excitement. None appeared perturbed, indeed most seemed very content.

The subject was then thanked and discharged, and the next subject was brought forward and the process repeated until all subjects had been interviewed and discharged. Each interview took around 8-10 minutes and the entire interview process took a little over an hour. There followed a final conversation with the curate. It was agreed that he should be informed as to the results and he was offered a copy of the final paper.

5.3. Atheist Group
The interview area was prepared in good time and the allocated rooms were well sign posted to allow volunteers to find the general area easily and to also find each individual room. Refreshments were provided in the designated waiting room. In order to ensure the required numbers were achieved we toured the campus asking individuals if they were atheist and if they were inviting them to take part in the research and giving them directions as to where they should go and when.

Subjects began to arrive promptly and were called in individually. The overall interview process was as per the Christian group described earlier.

In all ten atheists were interviewed. This was short of the required number and so six additional atheists were found, three within the college and three from outside. These were interviewed on an ad hoc basis, but always in a quiet, relaxed environment, which mirrored as closely as possible the type of setting used for the Christian interviews and for the main group of atheists.

In general the atheists were compliant, readily understood the questions and answered quickly. Very few observational notes were made, or needed to be made.

V. Results

Information concerning the various forms of statistical analyses was taken from Cardwell, et al. (2004).

1. Descriptive Statistics
The overall data sorted in the order of ascending scores is given in Table 3. The full data set is given in Appendix G. This is simplified to show only the subject information, their individual scores as a raw value, and the normal distribution value of their scores. The data is sorted in ascending order of each subject's individual score.

To assist in visual interpretation of the data, the atheists' scores are shown in red, whilst the Christian scores are given in blue. It is apparent at a glance that the atheist subjects have a marked tendency to a low score, whilst the Christian subjects have a marked tendency to a high score. The standard distribution curve derived from the normal distribution column data is given in Appendix H.

The greatest difference between the two groups was shown in the scores obtained for Question 17. It was decided to perform a correlation analysis on this question alone. Accordingly, Table 4 shows the scores gained on Question 17 in the primary survey for each subject in each group sorted in ascending order.

Table 3: Subject Scores in Ascending Order

Subject Score

Number Age Gender Total N.Dist

011 29 F 14 0.04
007 17 M 17 0.05
004 16 F 12 0.02
105 81 M 22 0.06
001 49 M 17 0.05
015 51 M 11 0.02
106 74 M 15 0.04
009 16 F 8 0.01
107 63 F 20 0.06
003 49 F 17 0.05
006 17 F 20 0.06
014 47 F 14 0.04
002 17 F 20 0.06
012 21 F 28 0.03
016 16 F 28 0.03
113 65 M 35 0.01
110 69 M 15 0.04
112 66 F 31 0.02
114 65 F 13 0.03
005 17 F 23 0.06
101 31 F 26 0.04
109 72 F 14 0.04
104 60 F 29 0.03
108 68 M 21 0.06
008 18 F 29 0.03
013 23 F 27 0.04
116 31 M 23 0.06
102 65 M 21 0.06
103 64 M 30 0.02
111 64 F 20 0.06
115 65 M 21 0.06
010 31 M 28 0.03

It is clear that the atheists score heavily at the lower end of the scale, whilst the converse is true of the Christians. The derived correlation coefficient is very low at 0.41. This would seem to indicate that Christians assign a greater significance to ritual than do atheists,.

2. Inferential Statistics
The experimental used independent measures, which examined the ordinal data level using the Mann-Whitney Test, as shown in Table 5. This compares the ranks the individual subject scores in each of the subject groups (i.e. atheists and Christians). If one group has a rank that exceeds the rank of the other group by a significant margin this would tend to indicate that the results obtained were due to chance alone.

Table 5: Mann-Whitney Table and Analysis

Atheists:

Subject score 8 11 12 14 14 15 17 17 17 20 20 20 22 28 28 35
Subject rank 1 2 3 4.5 4.5 6 8 8 8 11 11 11 13 14.5 14.5 16

Total Rank score = 136

Christians:

Subject score 13 14 15 20 21 21 21 23 23 26 27 28 29 29 30 31
Subject rank 1 2 3 4 6 6 6 8.5 8.5 10 11 12 13.5 13.5 15 16

Total Rank score = 136

U1 = 16*16 + 16 (16+1) / 2 – 136 = 256

U2 = 16*16 – 256 = 0

Observed Value = 0

Critical Value = 75

The U value is lower than the critical value, so the difference is significant at the 5% level for a two-tailed test.

Test Proportion Observed Critical Significant/
Value Value not Significant

Mann-Whitney 5% 0 75 Significant

From these results the one-tailed hypothesis (that Christians should score higher than atheists because they have a ritual based religion) is accepted. The null hypothesis (that there is no difference between atheists and Christians and that hence there is no link between religious based ritual and PCS) is rejected. Thus, Smay's theory (2001) would seem to the confirmed, whilst Bowyer's (2005) is not.

VI. Discussion

Even a cursory examination of the results and the derived statistics show clearly that the Christians were scoring higher and with a greater degree of consistency on the key questions. The atheists score consistently lower. This would tend to support my hypotheses and suggests that Smay's (2001) linkage between OCD and Christian ritual and belief systems is valid. The Mann-Whitney test supports both this contention and my alternative hypothesis. The null hypothesis, however, that there would be no difference between Christian and atheist coping strategies is not supported. This experiment has seemingly yielded significant results.

Whether this is indeed as Smay (ibid.) claims or is in accord with the implication of Portelli's (2005.p.43) more modest claim that Christians are bound to score higher since ritual is a strong part of their culture is a matter for future conjecture. This experiment does not offer sufficient light. Yet Bowyer & Leinard's (2005. p. 7) claim supports the notion that there are strong indications that the Christians tend towards PCS, and that this is incorporated into a significant part of their Christian life.

The limitations discovered before and during the experiment were principally in finding enough representative candidates for the atheists. There is no validation of the individual subject's atheism or otherwise. I am reliant upon their individual honesty. Although one can be reasonably confident that the Christians were indeed, it may be that they as a group are not representative of Christianity as a whole, or indeed manifest the same psychological traits as other religions or congregations. A larger, more varied and better-validated group of subjects might reveal different data.

Largely for this reason the strong use of the term "OCD" was avoided in the context of this experiment, hence the adoption of the weaker term "PCS". A revision of this experiment would almost certainly have offered more challenges if the subject groups included numbers who were diagnosed OCD sufferers, either within both groups or as a separate group in their own right. I would suggest that in such an experiment, the actual OCD sufferers would score highest, followed by the Christians, and then the atheists.

Better control of the experimental environment might also affect the results. There might also be a difference in scores between life-long Christians, recent converts, and so on. It is also possible that atheists who have lapsed out of a religion might retain elements of ritual at some level. Information about the different subject's lifestyles and backgrounds might also have a bearing. An experiment that considered the response from members of different religions might also yield interesting results. However the majority of these proposals would require more complex designs and more control that I was able to exert in this limited investigation.

Bibliography

Bowyer, P & Lienard, P; 2005; "Why Ritualized Behavior? Precaution Systems and Action Parsing in Developmental, Pathological and Cultural Rituals"; Monograph, Department of Psychology, Washington University in St Louis.

Cardwell, M, Clark, L & Meldrum, C; 2004; Psychology for A2 Level; Harper Collins, London.

Fiske, AP & Haslam, N; 1997; "Is obsessive-compulsive disorder a pathology of the human disposition to perform socially meaningful rituals? Evidence of similar content." Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 185(4), pp. 211-222.

Greist, JH; 1992; "An integrated approach to treatment of obsessive compulsive disorder"; J. of Clinical Psychology; 35, pp. 38-41

Greist, JH; 1998; "The comparative effectiveness of treatments of obsessive compulsive disorder"; Bulletin of Menninger Clinic; 62, pp.197-207.

Moritz, S & Mühlenen, A; 2005; "Inhibition of return in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder"; Journal of Anxiety Disorders, Elsevier, 19, pp.117-126

Portelli, C; 2004; "Advanced Brief Strategic Therapy for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorders"; Monograph found at www.centroditerapiastrategica.org/journal_english_1/Articoli_Inglese/portelli.pdf

Salsman, JM & Carlson, CR; 2005; "Religious Orientation, Mature Faith and Psychological Distress: Elements of Positive and Negative Associations"; J. for the Scientific Study of Religion, vol. 44, pp. 201, June 2005

Sica, C, et al.; 2002; "Obsessive-compulsive Disorder Linked to Piety"; Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40, pp.813.

Smay, D; 2001; "The Disease of Ritual: Obsessive Compulsive Disorder as an Outgrowth of Normal Behaviour"; Department of Anthropology, Emory University; Presentation to Myth and Ritual in American Life, 7 February, 2001

Do I fit your concepts and categories?

2009-10-04T16:42:00.001+01:00

I think that I can be a domineering woman. I don’t lack self-esteem and I am confident in voicing my opinions and expressing myself. I am not insecure enough to respond in the expected negative way that women tend to do, when paid a compliment. I say “thank you” and acknowledge my assets. I have been forced into being a victim, and I have been shown that confrontation can sometimes be a defence mechanism. People have pointed out that often I seem aggressive or defensive. There are many reasons why I become defensive and I do not feel unreasonable in my defences – I view them as morality and conscience that stable, reasonable people would also find abhorrent and worth being either confrontational or defensive on.

I am shocked at the environments others and I have encountered. Sometimes it brings me to question my judgement and my understanding of the world around. There is no such thing in my view as normality; yet, there are such things as right and wrong – and harm to others. The problems I find are said very well in a song by Ani DiFranco “… every time I say something they find hard to hear, they chalk it up to my anger, never to their own fear, and imagine you’re a girl, just trying to finally come clean, knowing full well they preferred you were dirty, and smiling.” (Ani DiFranco, 1995, Not a Pretty Girl). This I find says a lot about my experience of people I encounter more often than not.

How many people use their personality, their understanding of people as an excuse to do terrible things? When people control people, and the validation for this is that; that person has allowed me to, they never argue, I am controlling, I like things to be perfect, I want the best for them and me, I am looking out for them. What about when someone like myself argues beliefs, life gaols, the way someone is behaving? What about when I can pinpoint someone’s downfalls and insecurities, sometimes before they are even realised? What kind of person does that make me? - Someone foolish or fearless. Western society is so stereotypical, so conceptual that very few people I meet can categorise me – I am insecure but not with the things you’d expect – I have self-esteem, I know my responsibilities and my uniqueness and I’m not afraid. Anyone can try to pick and pull me apart – I can be vulnerable and I can seem sad, threatened, angry, emotional, but… surprisingly maybe – I am not insecure and afraid of what anyone tries to do to me or confront me with. I have already confronted the worst of the worst.

So, when I meet people who cannot understand why I am domineering, yet I can be vulnerable - This does not fit the stereotype. How can I be a woman and like myself? How can I be a person with a valid opinion? How can I be someone who knows and can see, but still contain a naivety? How can I be a musician and still have a steady job? I just can and I am. I don’t fit some stereotypes and when people accept this, they understand and re-stereotype this world. Those who cannot accept, contain a fear and insecurity about their world… they cannot see that they mould and make me fit their pre-concept and if I don’t go along, if it confuses and doesn’t make sense, then its best to re-categorise me into another concept people understand in their experienced knowledge that can avoid with this with insecure validation, or, the approach I am most acquainted with is to use aggression to either force, control or demise of who I am. I am creative, and yet also academic… I am a stable extrovert according to standard personality tests, yet I know I can be neurotic. So, while I know who I am and I can confront my internal self, I see so many people who think they know who they are and who I am – but in reality their lack of ability in dealing with my questions and my quires – I see insecurity and fear and another wrong stereotype of me.

“Richard Dawkins seems angry” – well so am I!

2009-07-31T12:55:00.001+01:00

When we read a fictional story or watch a movie, what makes us empathise enough with the characters to understand that they might be angry? They might be many other emotions but how can we relate? Why should we empathise and is anger just as important as all other emotions for surviving as a species? With emotion being one of the most important aspects of human life and understanding, experience and self be, the founders of what makes us perceive emotions the way we do as well as feel the emotions the way we do. There are said to be five basic emotions ‘The Big Five’ (Ekman 1998). These travel across the cultures and are; anger, fear, disgust, happiness and sadness. So, therefore it could be said as much as those of us who do not wish to acknowledge anger and disgust the two most externally and internally unfavourable emotions, it has to be said that they do exist and they are nurtured in all of us - no-one is above anger. These emotions are the setting stone for our goals in life. The person we become, the person we want to be, and anger becomes an important motivator for dealing with changing our environments and ourselves. I am not wrong to feel angry that people are narrow minded and therefore want to change their views, I am not wrong to feel angry if I fail my driving test and so take it again, I am not wrong to feel angry that my father rejected me and so never reject a person if I can help it and deal with rejection better if I have to deal with it, as well as avoid for my own sanity rejection where it may not be worth the risk – anger helps me make those judgements and learn to how live my life.

So now looking from the perspective of others – those who think they sound, appear or feel more superior for judging people as aggressive, angry, arrogant and all the negative emotions a person can feel but should not apparently feel according to the judgers. Who is anyone to judge a subjective emotion? No-one on this earth can know the true feeling of someone when they speak or write their thoughts. Unless we had a wider vocabulary or one that is more openly accepted, I might say “I am angry that Rupert couldn’t be bothered to talk to me today, I am also hurt and disgusted that he would rather play with his other friends!” Maybe I should have added envy, jealousy, insecurity, depressed – at the same time I could add – motivated, challenged and eager! The negatives and the positives could both be present yet it might be indescribable in our structured language to express those feelings verbally – so the physical may help you understand. But, then the physical and verbal might not explain what is true - this is when everyone thinks that they are a professional psychologist! “You’re angry because I see it in your face!”. Wrong again! You see what you want to see, we all see what only our limited capacities and understanding of our world give us an ability to see. We know nothing of the true emotions others feel and cannot truly judge without actually considering what is expressed and said to us as the fact, and also accept that this is not. The ‘beetle in the box’ dilemma – “I can see my beetle in my box, I can describe it to you, tell you what it does and what it likes, but remember, I am the only person who can see my beetle and thus the only person who truly knows what my beetle looks like, and does, and in-fact if it is a beetle in my box!” - We never know anyone else truly or fully – we can only know ourselves and what others tell us (if that is even the truth).

So, ourselves is the element we set our standards by, we judge others in ourselves. Hence, when someone claims they think Richard Dawkins seems aggressive and angry in a book about religion, I ask myself – is Dawkins really aggressive or is that how someone perceives and so judges him – can Dawkins not be factual, irritated, exhausted, desperate, passionate, unhappy, anguished, frustrated, precise, impatient, disgusted, motivated, illustrative, expressive, orientated, ambitious, provocative, challenging, informative etc etc. Why pin people down to the emotions we limit ourselves to understanding, and in turn not acknowledge the problems people face, and instead of finding a solution or demeaning someone’s true beauty because of their feelings, can we not accept that this is part of their experience and survival, something we cannot truly understand or know, but have to accept as a helpful emotion for solving other problems and issues people will face in the future. Dawkins, may well appear angry, but maybe he’s not and even if he was or is, that could be the solution to his own motivated success or a failure he chooses to avoid. Those who are so arrogant as to think they know how someone is motivated enough to throw judgement or solution should keep their thoughts to themselves because on the wider scale of emotion, they appear nothing but foolish and harmful to negatives we should not try to solve but use to conquer and be better human beings. I am afraid of those who cannot admit how they truly feel, or openly admit they have negative emotional responses. Those responses and feelings are the solution to finding true happiness, so why not embrace them and in turn stop hiding ourselves from others.

The Things We Take For Granted

2009-06-21T21:47:00.000+01:00

Here’s the list of things I take fro granted and acknowledge I should do my best to recognise and solve.

My mother: she always been there for me, always looked after me in my most happy of moments and saddest of moments; we have shared everything in the last 25 years, from her rocky rides to mine. Recently I have spent a lot of time focused on others around me, friends, travelling, studies, work and at the bottom of the pile comes my mum. It’s as though instinctively I know that unconditionally she loves me and will always be there for me. I know that even when we have arguments or have our own troubles as every relationship does, she will be there, always. Three people over the years who I have been close to have disliked her, which I have taken for granted how wrong they were, and although I always defended her, for her beauty, I should really have walked away from those people, because they not only harmed my mother, but me also. I should spend more time with her, I should tell her more often what a good mother she is. I should tell her she’s beautiful and praise all the good things she keeps doing more often. I think that I presume she already know this, but we all know everyone needs to hear it too. Because of her, I know how to love really well, and I also know how to express this.

My sister: I take for granted how vulnerable she can be, and how she not only longs for mums affections and attention but sometimes mine too. I forget how she is a woman like me, and when I am low, she can empathise with my feelings often better than others. When I get myself into terrible places in my mind, which have been caused by the memories and sometimes I admit ‘flashbacks’, she helps pull me through and keep me level headed. She can be caring and kind and she makes me laugh when it can be most needed. I should spend more time getting to know the good side to this young, fun girl. I should spend more time singing her praises and giving her responsibility to feel important in my life. I should reassure her more too, like she does me.

My friends: I take for granted how they will always be interested in my life and always be there when I need or want them, yet I can throw them away or be so unsociable, I feel I do them wrong. They have sometimes supported me, comforted me and made me smile at the most important time in my life, even when I have thought they would forget me, they return to give good advice. I often think that I should spend more resources making the effort to see them wherever in the country. To enquire more often about how they are, and what they have done. I often know that I should find the bother to go out and enjoy their company instead of wasting time on the computer or with the TV. I also know that if I could afford to I would take them all out and repay the kindnesses they have shown me. I should sometimes put them first.

There is actually very little that I will not analyse and see if I can improve. I feel often compelled to hold my hands up and apologies or do right the wrong I may make. I believe I am a lady of my honour. I often find I have more honour than most, and this is something that I cannot fathom in others. I do show gratitude for many small things life has to offer me - from the flowers that grow in my garden, to the beach being down the road. I also find I am close to tears if someone cooks dinner that I like, especially for me, or if someone does something selfless. I acknowledge the things people find hard to do, and yet find courage in doing for me. I often find that by keeping my expectations low, I will find the most happy moments and beautiful things in everyday life. However, in those expectations I discover people who are lazy and idol with no “want” to make the effort for me that could make me happy (at least not without encouragement from me). I feel that I will always be looking to make my world right and reasoned, but I always give in to the small signs of acceptance, and in that I start questioning. Am I worth more? Am I arrogant? Am I even worthy? Am I taken for granted?

Where is the line?

2009-06-05T14:17:00.002+01:00

I myself have had a lot to deal with when it comes to people. It often makes me wonder how much emotional and physical torment people can tolerate. I can be stubborn and I know that a great deal of my hardheaded thinking has derived from the pits of human cruelty. Sometimes what surprises me the most is that the people who socially group around me, hold standards of not tolerating rudeness, thinking smacking is sinful and that abuse can come in any form of angry or cruel intention, yet, on the flip side they all turn out or tend to be criminals of the actions they most dislike, and often it appears to be aimed at myself. I know that I have these criminal moments myself, but I also have learnt to control my anger and my upset, sometimes to a stifling level, because the feelings in my heart is that whatever they have done to me, I cannot continue or feel “okay” hurting them. As soon as I am aware that I am causing pain, my instant need is it to correct my wrong. Maybe I have found the courage to fight for what I have done and what others do, or maybe it is that I can easily loose my dignity to appease others for that easier life?

My main questions here are; why does this keep happening to me, and what affects is this having on my trust, self-esteem, ability to care and my fundamentally giving and pleasing nature? I am worried and concerned that in all the verbal and physical beatings I have taken, eventually this anger will rise up, and spill into others around me who I genuinely do not want to hurt. Has society been so badly wronged over the years that now we all just hurt one another? But the admittance, awareness, acknowledgment, solution, stability, determination and recovery are the processes we all must take to truly be balanced individuals. I have done the course and wear the t-shirt, I still slip up, as everyone does when letting others inside and close, but to say the least I no longer have the need to play ‘mind games’, to manipulate or lie to myself or anyone else. I am who I am, and I know its better for the soul to tell it like it is, than to let these monsters form in our minds. All this being said, I am well aware that when placed in familiar situations from my past, I rebel and try to reason for as long as is possible, before my victim instinct kicks in, and suddenly it is as though my soul has decided – fighting doesn’t work, don’t fight, reasoning hasn’t worked, give up or run away. I wonder if this is part of the “fight or flight” instinct we all have – when I was a child I used to be more flight, even in early relationships my low self-esteem made me fly, I never thought I was strong enough. Now, however my first instinct is to fight, but if I am worn down too much again the flight reappears.

Part of me feels that I want to let go of the baggage. That the past may have created part of me, but it is not the whole sum of me. I know my fundamental nature from an innocent child through till now has always been gentle and sensitive, but I am also aware that the damaged Tia that must survive can cover this nature. Survival is my main trait at present. Is this a good trait to carry? I feel that it is a burden and a scar of the survival skills I have had to acquire and the strength I have had to find to cope with so many diverse and painful situations. I want to leave this baggage behind, and my greatest want and need in this life is to find a position where I am no longer fighting to survive. Does anyone ever reach this stage? I now wonder where the line is between people, and I try to keep power struggles aimed in my direction equal, but rarely are people equal or truly respectful and trusting. It can be difficult to build trust and respect when so often people are determined or waiting for it to fall. I have always been accused by friends and family of giving my trust too easily, and yes, it has got me into trouble and it has caused pain, but it is as though the nature of Tia wants to believe that all people are good until proven otherwise, and then again when I do trust someone it suddenly dawns on me that they cannot do the same back, maybe due to fears or inadequacies of their own, or maybe everyone is right, trust cannot be given it must be earned? At least through all my dramas and struggle I know I have a strong mind and heart, which will keep growing and learning, and even if I am more cautious not to trust, my want is so strong that I will cross that line to give myself over. All I can ask now is that those who have my trust do not repeat my past and make my survival instinct kick in, because in all honestly I am tired of surviving.