You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Social Science’ category.
Category Archive
How to Influence Teenagers and other People too.
March 13, 2014 in Education, Social Science | Tags: Educational Strats, Paraphrasing, People, Problem Solving, Psychology | by The Arbourist | Comments closed
Working in behavioural education means that much of this stuff is old hat for me, but sometimes isn’t as common knowledge as I think it is for others, so lets review some the tricksy-hobbit ways P-sychologists work their magic. We’ll pick up midway though the article:
I asked Dahl what he does with his children when he wants to influence them.
His answer? He uses techniques from a clinical method called “motivational interviewing.” Motivational interviewing has proven effective in motivating behavior change in teens in difficult arenas, like drug and alcohol abuse, disordered eating, and risky sexual behavior. Dahl’s advice was to learn to use it as a parent for the more mundane areas where we’d like to see growth in our children, so that if we need it for a bigger problem we know what we are doing. Here are five motivational interviewing techniques that decrease kids’ resistance to our influence:
(1) Express empathy. Kids and teens are much more likely to listen to us if they feel understood. Resist the urge to give advice or to “finger-wag”—two things that tend to create defensiveness and resistance to our great ideas. Instead, reflect back to adolescents their position on things.
This is hard, you need to practice to make it sound like you are actually meaning what you say and listening to their point of view, even if the other person is most decidedly full of shit. The neat thing is that sometimes through careful listening and empathy you determine that you’re the one full of it, and can change your position.
(2) Ask open-ended questions to understand their position. We want to encourage our teens to share with us their innermost motivations. To do this, we can phrase our questions non-judgmentally in ways that will prompt the adolescent to elaborate. Even if we are giving kids a choice about what to talk about (“Do you want to talk about what it is like when you lose your temper at school, or do you want to talk about what makes it difficult for you to eat a healthy lunch?”) Dahl recommends that we always also throw in a super-open-ended question like, “…or maybe there is something else you would rather discuss? What do you think?”
Roundabout and redundant? I’d like you to reflect on your thinking processes when you get angry or defensive – is going straight for the problem always the best solution?
(3) Reflect what they are saying, not what we wish they were saying. This can be a simple restatement:
Adolescent: You say that I have to do all these things to make the team, but I think I’ll make the team even if I don’t jump through those hoops.
Parent: You’re not sure all this work is necessary.Or, you can reflect what they mean but use different words:
Adolescent: I’m not an alcoholic!
Parent: That label really doesn’t fit you.Or, try reflecting what they are feeling:
Adolescent: I’m not an alcoholic!
Parent: It really makes you angry when you think you are being labeled in that way.Finally, try amplifying or exaggerating—without sarcasm!—what they are saying if the adolescent clearly expresses some ambivalence about their resistance to your influence:
Adolescent: I’m really not sure that I need help or treatment to deal with this.
Parent: Your life is really fine right now, just the way it is.
Let’s face the facts gentle readers, communication is hard and often inaccurate even at the best of times. Throw in a hot button issue or three and you have the recipe for a bevy of misunderstanding and usually a shouting match. Reflecting, paraphrasing and mirroring provide the time and brainspace for both parties to understand what they are actually saying and the motivations behind them.
(4) Show them their inconsistencies—gently. One thing that we can reflect back to our teens, using the above strategies, are their conflicting motivations—the inconsistencies between what they say their goals or beliefs are, and their current behavior.
What to say, then, to that teen who wants to join the garage band, but has not been practicing regularly or learning the music? First, ask her permission to tell her what you see.
If she says she’s willing to listen to your perspective, gently point out the discrepancy between what she says she wants and what she’s doing to make that happen in a non-judgemental, factual way: “You really want to join Jack’s band, but before they’ll let you audition, you need to learn all the songs on their playlist. You haven’t started learning those songs yet. It seems like the play is taking up a lot of the time that you might spend practicing, and that when you get home from play practice, you just want to chill out in your room instead of practicing more or starting your homework.”
Do you like playing with hand grenades? Then this is the step for you. What counts most is your relationship with the person in question, you know how they are, how they will react – “ish” – so go slow and careful for the best results.
(5) Support their autonomy and emphasize their personal choice and control. Teens are most likely to change when they recognize the problem themselves, and when they are optimistic about their ability to solve the problem. We can help by expressing our confidence in their abilities, and by emphasizing that we can’t change them—that the choice about whether or not to change is the adolescent’s alone. Dahl recommends saying something like this: “Whether or not you make any changes in your activities or your behavior is entirely up to you. I definitely would not want you to feel pressured to do anything against your will.”
All of these techniques take practice.
Not always applicable, but setting yourself up on their team, supporting their goals and aspirations as oppossed to telling them they are the express train to WrongVille, can sometimes win the day for both of you.
Share this:
What if the Centre of the World Changed?
December 29, 2013 in Social Science | Tags: Norms, Society, Sociolgy | by The Arbourist | 2 comments
Interesting thought. Discuss. :)
Share this:
Building Trust – Sliding Door Moments
December 17, 2013 in Social Science | Tags: Building Trust, Intimate Relationships, John Gottman, Relationships, Sociology | by The Arbourist | 1 comment
Building a good relationship doesn’t happen in an instant. The good relationship requires a stream of small, often seemingly inconsequential, choices that build attunement empathy and sensitivity to your partner’s (and yours) need. John Gottman describes the process and also touches on the idea the CL-Alt which can start a cascade that moves couples farther away from a good relationship space.
Share this:
The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse – Marriage Behaviours that Destroy Marriages.
December 4, 2013 in Social Science | Tags: Marriage, Relationships, Sociology, The 4 Horsemen | by The Arbourist | 10 comments
I thought I’d share some useful advice about relationships and marriage. It will be familiar reading to those who have taken sociology of the family. Enjoy.
“John Gottman’s FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE
John Gottman, Ph.D., is a well respected psychologist and marriage researcher who reports that an unhappy marriage can increase your chances of becoming ill by 35% and take four years off your life! He believes “working on your marriage every day will do more for your health and longevity than working out at a health club”. Although many of us believe that anger is the root cause of unhappy relationships, Gottman notes that it is not conflict itself that is the problem, but
how we handle it. Venting anger constructively can actually do wonders to clear the air and get a relationship back in balance. However, conflict does become a problem when it is characterized by the presence of what Gottman calls the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” : criticism,contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling.
1. CriticismCriticism involves attacking your partner’s personality or character, rather than focusing on the specific behavior that bothers you. It is healthy to air disagreements, but not to attack your spouse’s personality or character in the process. This is the difference between saying, “I’m upset that you didn’t take out the trash” and saying, “I can’t believe you didn’t take out the trash. You’re just so irresponsible.” In general, women are more likely to pull this horseman into conflict.
***
2. Contempt.
Contempt is one step up from criticism and involves tearing down or being insulting toward your partner. Contempt is an open sign of disrespect. Examples of contempt include: putting down your spouse, rolling your eyes or sneering, or tearing down the other person with so – called “humor.”***
3. Defensiveness.
Adopting a defensive stance in the middle of conflict may be a natural response, but does not help the relationship. When a person is defensive, he or she often experiences a great deal of tension and has difficulty tuning into what is being said. Denying responsibility, making excuses, or meeting one complaint with another are all examples of defensiveness.***
4. Stonewalling.
People who stonewall simply refuse to respond. Occasional stonewalling can be healthy, but as a typical way of interacting, stonewalling during conflict can be destructive to the marriage. When you stonewall on a regular basis, you are pulling yourself out of the marriage, rather than working out your problems. Men tend to engage in stonewalling much more often than women do.***
All couples will engage in these types of behaviors at some point in their marriage, but when the four horsemen take permanent residence, the relationship has a high likelihood of failing. In fact, Gottman’s research reveals that the chronic presence of these four factors in a relationship can be used to predict, with over 80% accuracy, which couples will eventually divorce. When attempts to repair the damage done by these horsemen are met with repeated rejection, Gottman says there is over a 90% chance the relationship will end in divorce.***
If your relationship is filled with these four issues, take notice, change yourself, work together, make improvements. Don’t delay!
As Gottman has made clear, with work and an investment in overcoming these challenges marriage can improve and become successful. If left unattended divorce is often inevitable.”
Excerpted from an article, “Marriage and Healthy” by Poonam Sharma, Ph.D.;
further information and research can be found in Dr. John Gottman’s book, “The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work”
Apologies for the crappy formatting, as this was from a .pdf and they suck when put into raw form.
*Update* – Video of Gottman speaking about the Four Horsemen.
Share this:
The Innovation of Loneliness – Film Short.
November 28, 2013 in Social Science | Tags: Loneliness, Technology | by The Arbourist | 3 comments
I’m not much for the social media, to be honest I prefer to be alone because the rest of you are so darn noisy. :)
Share this:
The Sexy Lie – Caroline Heldman
September 26, 2013 in Education, Feminism, Social Science | Tags: Feminism, Objectification, The Next Generation, The Sexy Lie, Women | by The Arbourist | Comments closed
A fantastic video on identifying and stopping the objectification of women.
Share this:
The DWR Sunday Disservice – The Ideology, or Cult of Happiness
August 18, 2013 in Politics, Social Science | Tags: Barbara Ehrenreich, Postive Psychology (Aka Bullshite), Systems of Control, The DWR Sunday Disservice, The Power of Positive Thinking | by The Arbourist | 1 comment
Today, let’s look at one of the prime methods of baffling the masses. The power of positive thinking and the credulous ‘Positive Psychology’ that buttresses the fatuous assertions made by the followers of the cult of happiness. While not a exclusively in the domain in religious, the deluded (religious and otherwise) use ‘positive thinking’ to lie to their flocks and ensconce the cancerous idea that somehow if they just work a little harder and be a little happier wealth, fame and fortune will fall into their laps.
This of course, is bullshit.
Your earning potential in life is determined by a host of factors including where you where born, what your parents do, and their socioeconomic status. All of these factors have exactly nothing to do with your attitude or work ethic, but figure prominently on the general trajectory your life will follow. I hypothesize that this is why the cult of Happiness is so pervasive in the US is because it rides shotgun to the other great American Myth that with enough individual hard work you can “make it”.
Both mythologies are meant to distract people from the well worn paradigm of the wealthy plundering society exclusively for their benefit. Real societal change – that brought on by mass social movements – is carefully guarded against. While working at non unionized Wal Mart, being paid less than a living wage and living off of food stamps (that would be the American government subsidizing Walmart btw. Socialism!!1!1!!!), if you just work a little harder and be a little more positive you’ll prosper. Fixing the systematic problems in society is the furthest idea from your mind as you just manage to scrape by, from day to day. If the endemic poverty doesn’t silence you, the self-blame and shame will.
The converse is where the truly toxic shit kicks in, if you are somehow(?) not prosperous the problem must be all in *you*. Not the society around you, not the cultural norms, not the fucking status quo that mandates working poverty for so many Americans – no no no – the problem must be with the individuated, atomized, you.
This is fucking brilliant social engineering, no? Keeping the common people blaming themselves as opposed to organizing and effecting social change, all the while your class continues to ravage the countries wealth and resources.
Barbra Ehrenreich talks about this phenomena in her book Bright Sided and in the talk that follows starts her explanation of the cult of happiness via her own experiences with breast cancer. Further into the talk she describes the effects in the workplace and society as a whole. The book and the talk are well worth your time, faithful readers. I’ve excerpted the review from the book and the talk from a Harvard Book Store .Enjoy.
Ehrenreich’s quarrel is not with feeling upbeat but rather with the “inescapable pseudoscientific flapdoodle” of life coaches and self-improvement products claiming that
thinking positively will result in wealth, success and other joyful outcomes. Such magical thinking has become a means of social control in the workplace—where uncheerful employees are ostracized—and prevents action to achieve social change. With life coaches, business motivators and evangelical preachers promoting delusional expectations—“God has a plan” for those who have lost jobs and homes in the current economic crisis, says Christian preacher Joel Osteen—positive thinking can claim partial credit for a major role in such recent disastrous events as the Iraq war and the financial meltdown.
Ehrenreich’s many interviews include meetings with psychologist Martin Seligman, whose “positive psychology,” she finds, offers little credible evidence to make it any different from the wishing-will-make-it-so thinking of writers from Dale Carnegie (How to Win Friends & Influence People) to Rhonda Byrne (The Secret). The author’s tough-minded and convincing broadside raises troubling questions about many aspects of contemporary American life, and she provides an antidote to the pervasive culture of cheerfulness—reality-based critical thinking that will encourage people to alter social arrangements in ways that improve their lives.
Positive thinking summarized:
“[…] the new science of positive psychology is founded on a whole series of fallacious arguments; these involve circular reasoning, tautology, failure to clearly define or properly apply terms, the identification of causal relations where none exist, and unjustified generalisation. Instead of demonstrating that positive attitudes explain achievement, success, well-being and happiness, positive psychology merely associates mental health with a particular personality type: a cheerful, outgoing, goal-driven, status-seeking extravert.”




Your opinions…