Psychology Research

Identifying Unexpected Therapeutic Targets via Chemical-Protein Interactome

PLSOne - Neuroscience — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 07:00:00 +0000

Drug medications inevitably affect not only their intended protein targets but also other proteins as well. In this study we examined the hypothesis that drugs that share the same therapeutic effect also share a common therapeutic mechanism by targeting not only known drug targets, but also by interacting unexpectedly on the same cryptic targets. By constructing and mining an Alzheimer’s disease (AD) drug-oriented chemical-protein interactome (CPI) using a matrix of 10 drug molecules known to treat AD towards 401 human protein pockets, we found that such cryptic targets exist. We recovered from CPI the only validated therapeutic target of AD, acetylcholinesterase (ACHE), and highlighted several other putative targets. For example, we discovered that estrogen receptor (ER) and histone deacetylase (HDAC), which have recently been identified as two new therapeutic targets of AD, might already have been targeted by the marketed AD drugs. We further established that the CPI profile of a drug can reflect its interacting character towards multi-protein sets, and that drugs with the same therapeutic attribute will share a similar interacting profile. These findings indicate that the CPI could represent the landscape of chemical-protein interactions and uncover “behind-the-scenes” aspects of the therapeutic mechanisms of existing drugs, providing testable hypotheses of the key nodes for network pharmacology or brand new drug targets for one-target pharmacology paradigm.

Here is the original:
Identifying Unexpected Therapeutic Targets via Chemical-Protein Interactome

Evolutionary Psychology and The Oscar Race: The Final Lap

Psychology Today — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 07:01:27 +0000

The contenders for Best Picture dealt with many facets of the classical evolutionary themes. Which movie should win best picture?

How Psychologists Can Help Correct DSM-V: A Response

Psychology Today — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 04:50:52 +0000

Psychiatrist Dr. Allen Frances deserves congratulations and gratitude for his recent posting here at Psychology Today regarding the American Psychiatric Association’s forthcoming revised diagnostic manual, the DSM-V . As he makes quite clear, the new manual has potential problems, and psychologists now have both an opportunity and responsibility to try to correct (or at least minimize) such problems prior to publication. One problem is that the DSM-V is created and published exclusively by the American Psychiatric Association. Dr. Frances points out that now is the time to question whether it is appropriate for the American Psychiatric Association to control the contents and publication of the DSM-V . Psychiatrists are, by definition and training, physicians first. As medical doctors, they have been indoctrinated to conceptualize and treat syndromes or symptoms as medical diseases or illnesses. A diagnosis based on the DSM-V is, by definition, a psychiatric diagnosis. Despite the shift in DSM over the years toward using the term “mental disorder” instead of “mental illness,” most psychiatrists still tend to take a decidedly biological view of such disorders. For this reason, the vast majority of psychiatrists being trained and practicing today have become little more than psychopharmacologists, limiting themselves to the prescription of psychotropic medications over what was once the mainstay of psychiatry–psychotherapy. Of course, the pharmaceutical companies strongly support this biochemical trend. As do the insurance companies, who resist paying for extensive (and expensive) psychotherapy. Clearly, the more psychiatric diagnoses contained in the DSM-V , the broader the definition of mental disorders, the more profit can supposedly be made by so-called Big Pharma in providing the drugs psychiatrists so often prescribe. While clinical psychology has to some extent leaped onto this same biological bandwagon driven by contemporary psychiatry, seeking prescription privileges, some psychologists and other non-medical mental health professionals have practically written off the value and importance of psychodiagnosis today–in part precisely due to its inherent medicalization, biological bias, dehumanizing labeling, and notorious inaccuracy. As a result, I suspect many psychologists and other psychotherapists may be less than enthusiastic about participating in improving the standardized diagnostic system they despise yet are nonetheless forced to use by the insurance companies and other third party payors. But this professional apathy is itself a big part of the problem. And such resigned passivity on the part of psychologists at the present moment would be a major mistake. I believe it is time for the leadership of the American Psychological Association to take a far more active and public role in the revision and direction of the DSM-V . Clearly, the publication of this diagnostic manual should be a collaborative effort between the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association. Yet, one wonders exactly what, if anything, the American Psychological Association is doing about DSM-V ? Or about the hypermedicalization of psychology. As Dr. Frances, former chair of the DSM-IV Task Force indicates, the next six months or so is a window of opportunity for both the American Psychological Association, clinical and forensic psychologists, and other mental health professionals to provide vitally needed feedback about the proposed DSM-V revisions. And, due to external criticism about the revision process thus far, the American Psychiatric Association is apparently more receptive than ever before to such feedback. This is not about scrapping the DSM-V . Speaking as a clinical psychologist, psychodiagnosis can be extremely valuable in treatment planning and psychotherapy. Diagnosis is an initial, though admittedly limited, way of understanding the patient, his or her symptoms, and their possible sources. (See, for example, my enthusiastically supportive previous post on the proposed DSM-V diagnosis of Posttraumatic Embitterment Disorder .) It gives the clinician a starting point in hypothesizing about the nature of the symptoms, and it provides the patient with the often encouraging and humanizing sense that his or her problem can be known, is shared by others, and will be treatable. In forensic psychology , diagnosis is an integral aspect and focal point of every forensic evaluation, especially in the field of forensic criminal psychology. A good diagnosis can aid a jury or judge in reaching difficult, far-reaching, possibly life and death decisions regarding the fate of a criminal defendant. Of course, a bad diagnosis can have disastrous consequences. And different clinicians or expert witnesses frequently disagree regarding the diagnosis after having evaluated the same defendant. Which is why it is terribly important, as Dr. Frances suggests, that the DSM-V revisions strive to make it not a less but more

Politics: 3 Words I Wish Washington Would Learn

Psychology Today — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 22:08:49 +0000

Recent surveys have shown that trust and regard that Americans hold for their elected officials in Washington is at historic lows. And those government officials wonder why they are aren’t on anyone’s Most Popular list these days. Let me count the ways: bailouts, backroom deals, tax cuts for the wealthy, extreme partisanship, election-year politics, the list goes on and on. This behavior among those who purport to represent us is really just business as usual in the Beltway. But this wanton disregard feels like a real betrayal lately given that most ordinary Americans are having a hard enough time without being kicked while they’re down by the very elected representatives who are supposed to be helping them up. It seems clear to those of every political persuasion that many (dare I say most) politicians have lost touch with those whom they are supposed to represent. I can understand that politicians have different ideas about how to best serve their constituents, but their legislative efforts these days are so disconnected from the needs and goals of regular Americans that, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, they can’t even fool some of the people some of the time into thinking that they care about us. Here’s a great example. The Senate Banking Committee responsible for creating banking reform legislation recently met with representatives from the banking industry (read lobbyists) to get their input. Did the committee also meet with a representatives of, well, us regular folks to get our feedback about the legislation? That’s a big negative. What input could the banking lobbyists provide other than to ensure that the reform was favorable to them and harmful to us? What benefit would the committee garner from such a meeting? Oh yeah, how naïve of me, campaign contributions. I think that our elected representatives need to return to school to take American History again (which they obviously failed the first time around) and learn three words that might enable them to actually earn the title of “representative.” The first word our government should learn is “of,” as in “of the people.” The of of which I speak refers to the notion that our government should be comprised of people like us rather than from an oligarchical cabal that shows little resemblance to ordinary Americans. Yet, it has become painfully clear to those of us who belong to the “us” group that our government is dominated, both within and outside, by those with wealth and status who have little regard for anyone else. The second word our government should learn is “by,” as in “by the people.” The by of which I speak refers to the notion that our government is a proxy for its citizens, in other words, they = us. In this role, we should be able to trust that our best interests are served in Washington because they want the same thing as we do because, well, they are us. Unfortunately, they ≠ us, they = $$ + power and we = nada. With this disconnect between America’s citizenry and its elected representatives, they can still claim to be elected, but can’t fairly claim to be representative. The third word our government should learn is “for,” as in “for the people.” The for of which I speak refers to the notion, now seemingly quaint and outdated, that all activities in Washington are devoted to serving the best interests of its citizens. Even in a political culture as polarized as ours, we can all agree that the symbiotic relationship that currently exists in Washington between our elected officials and special-interest groups serves the best interests of those in power with only the occasional appearance of concern for us lowly citizens. I would like to see two things happen to those gentlemen and ladies whom we did elect, but don’t deserve to be called our representatives. The next time they are up for election, we the American people assert the last vestige of power we still do hold and demonstrate to them in no uncertain terms that if they will not act as our representatives, then we will not elect them again. But before that, those in Washington should be forced to stand in front of the American people and repeat the last sentence of the Gettysburg Address one time for every time that they met with a lobbyist or took special-interest money. Because those people in Washington whom we elected obviously don’t know that last sentence, I’ll provide crib notes (with special emphasis on the last words): “It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us-that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion-that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain-that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom-and that government: of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

View original post here:
Politics: 3 Words I Wish Washington Would Learn

Build Your Social Resilience

Psychology Today — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 21:29:15 +0000

Resilience as a property of a substance refers to its ability to recoil or spring back into shape after bending, stretching, or being compressed. People can also be more or less resilient, and in this context resilience refers to a person’s ability to withstand or recover quickly from difficult conditions. Most people think about a person’s resilience as a capacity that, akin to intelligence or musical talent, does not vary substantially across contexts. This view is odd given that the resilience of substances can vary a great deal across contexts. For instance, water in a warm environment (i.e., when it is in a liquid state) is much more resilient than water in a frozen environment (i.e., when it is in the solid state of ice). Similarly, an individual’s resilience can vary dramatically as a function of the social context. Alex Zautra of Arizona State University, Harry Reis of University of Rochester, and I have written recently about social resilience as an inherently multi-level construct, revealed by capacities of individuals and groups to foster, engage in, and sustain positive social relationships and to endure and recover from stressors and social isolation. Emergent levels of organization, ranging from dyads, families, and groups to cities, civilizations, and international alliances have long been apparent in human existence, but identifying the features of individuals, relationships, and group structures and norms that promote social resilience remains an most important challenge for the behavioral sciences. Given the market collapse of 2008, it is at least as important a question for economic science to address, as well. Social resilience is more than fulfilling friendships and the comfortable exchange of ideas. Although trust is essential, social resilience is not equivalent to warm hugs, unconditional positive regard, and anti-competition sentiments. Both science and the Olympics rest on competition as well as cooperation, both involve intense training and criticism, and both enterprises are high in social resilience. Social resilience recognizes that, as a social species, we work, think, and excel as groups/teams as well as individuals. Wolves and lions hunt in teams, and by doing so they are able to bring down prey that would be impossible to conquer alone. Human civilizations rest on the specialization, differentiation, and orchestration of human expertise so that we, as a collective, can achieve more than we could by our solitary efforts. Social resilience is an emergent (but not a magical) property. People who have diverse interests, skills, and resources and who can work together make it more likely the group as a whole can respond adaptively to unforeseen problems and challenges. The functions each person serves in such adverse circumstances may not be defined a priori by the knowledge or “skills” of the individuals per se. Instead, how these individuals are combined can fundamentally change the capacities/functions the group can achieve to address a novel challenge. When individuals feel rejected, isolated, distrusted, devalued, or simply disliked, they cannot work effectively as part of the unit, and they are less likely to adapt creatively as a unit as required by the challenges they confront. Socially resilient individuals value diverse perspectives and recognize that many tasks require coordination among persons with differing backgrounds, values, and priorities. A professional football team would have little chance of success if all their team members possessed identical features and skills. Social resilience implies not merely acceptance of diversity, but rather the intention to incorporate diverse perspectives into group activity for the creative adaptations that such diversity predisposes. Non-resilient persons seek to eliminate diversity by excluding individuals who differ or by accentuating pressures toward uniformity. Surrounding oneself with a lot of mini-me-s can be self-affirming but it does little to help one adapt to new challenges and problems or to withstand or recover quickly from very difficult conditions.

How Psychologists Can Help Correct DSM5

Psychology Today — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 21:08:31 +0000

The options being considered for DSM5 have finally been posted. Unfortunately, only a two month period has been allotted for comments from the field. The first draft of DSM5 contains many suggestions that will cause serious unintended consequences for mental health practice, research, and forensics (see my critique at http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/home/content/article/10168/1522341 ). My focus here is on the role of psychology in helping to rescue a flawed DSM5 process. We begin with a brief history of the previous DSM’s; proceed to my views on why and how DSM5 has gone wrong; and end with concrete suggestions on how psychologists can influence the future course of DSM5. A brief history of the DSM system The first official system of diagnosis in our field was introduced in the mid 1800’s to facilitate record keeping and statistical compilation in the newly emerging mental hospitals. The disorders covered were only those that occur in inpatients. The purview of classification was expanded greatly during World Wars I and II when it was realized that mental health problems constituted a major reason why people were unable to perform in the military. The system created military psychiatrists serving during World War II was later modified and became DSM-I. DSM-I was published in 1952 in conjunction with the first inclusion of mental disorders by the World Health Organization in its International Classification of Diseases (ICD). A very similar DSM-II was introduced with ICD-8 in 1968. DSM-I and DSM-II both suffered from low reliability and had only a minimal impact on mental health practice and research. The low status of the classification changed with the introduction in DSM-III of criteria sets that served as a guide for diagnosing each disorder. This innovation increased the reliability of diagnosis (at least in research settings), stimulated research, and improved communication across the clinical/research interface. DSM-III-R and DSM-IV were mere footnotes to DSM-III. The main value of DSM-IV was establishing the standard that changes should be supported by solid empirical evidence. It should be noted that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) came to hold the DSM franchise only by historical accident. It became the sponsor of DSM-I for four reasons: 1) DSM-I was coordinated with ICD, an MD driven classification of all medical illness, not just mental disorders; 2) APA had been a cosponsor of previous diagnostic systems; and, 3) it was psychiatrists who had developed the military system that served as the template for DSM-I; and, 4) no other organization wanted to be bothered with what seemed to be a thankless and not very useful task. Now that the DSMs have attained such importance, there have been repeated questions about the appropriateness of its continued sponsorship by more than just one professional organization. The National Institute of Mental Health has in the past given serious consideration to the possibility of itself assuming responsibility for the DSMs (NIMH had an authoritative role in the development of DSM-I, called then the National Committee for Mental Hygiene). The American Psychological Association has also at times considered publishing its own separate diagnostic system. Up until now, the APA has retained the DSM franchise because there has been sufficient confidence in its competence and integrity combined with the reluctance of other organizations to take on such an enormous effort. The numerous problems that have bedeviled the development of DSM5 again raise the question whether the American Psychiatric Association should be sole steward of an official diagnostic system that impacts on all mental health disciplines. Awareness of this concern (and the attendant risk of losing a valuable publishing asset) will likely make the APA especially receptive to useful suggestions coming from these other mental health disciplines. What has gone wrong with DSM5? The flaws in the DSM5 process were apparent early and resulted from an unfortunate combination of unrealistic ambition, unnecessary secrecy, and weak methodology. The DSM5 leadership aspired to achieve a paradigm shift in psychiatric diagnosis- although it should have been obvious that this grand ambition will not be realizable until we have a more fundamental understanding of the underlying causes of at least some of the mental disorders. The desire for a paradigm shift encouraged a spirit of unbridled innovation that has led to many troublesome suggestions. The problematic results of adventurism might have been checked if DSM5 had allowed the open dialogue with the field that had characterized the previous DSM’s. Instead, the DSM5 leadership created a fortress mentality that has so far prevented the identification and correction of bad ideas. Work group members were compelled to sign muzzling confidentiality agreements. Advisors were few and seemed to be selected to limit the possibility of critical review. Most damaging, the field has (except for the inevitable leak and the occasional presentation) been largely left in the dark about methods, timelines, and emerging suggestions. What little we know about the DSM5 methods encourages no confidence. Apparently, there has been little consideration of what should be the criteria for change, how to conduct risk/benefit analyses, how empirical documentation should be organized, how to write clear and consistent criteria, and when and how to conduct field trials. Left to their own devices and without external quality control, the DSM5 drafts are filled with suggestions that will have extremely damaging consequences. Finally, there is no one working on DSM5 who has experience writing diagnostic criteria- not surprisingly the new criteria sets are amateurish and require extensive revision. There has also been no posting of literature reviews and no indication of field trial topics, methods or sites. A grant request to fund field trials has been rejected suggesting that whatever field testing is done will not have adequate funding to determine the impact of changes on rates of disorder and whether DSM5 will spawn false positive “epidemics”. It is simply not clear that the DSM5 leadership, by itself, has the requisite expertise and resources to successfully transform the rough first drafts of DSM5 that will soon appear into a useable document. Much help and direction from the field is urgently needed. What are likely to be the worst suggestions in the draft DSM5? Impact on clinical practice-the DSM5 drafts contain many proposed new diagnoses that will be very common in the general population – i.e. binge eating, mixed anxiety depression, minor cognitive disorder, pre-psychotic risk syndrome, etc. The rationale for including these is that early identification and treatment will reduce severity, impairment, complications, and the risk of treatment resistance. Indeed, the diagnosis of sub-threshold conditions would of course be highly desirable if we had methods of early identification that were sufficiently sensitive and specific-but we simply do not. These suggestions (along with the drug company marketing that would undoubtedly accompany them) could create tens of millions of misidentified false positive “patients” who would then be subjected to unnecessary, expensive, and often quite harmful medication treatments Impact on research-the wordings of the criteria sets for many of the mental disorders have been stable for thirty years and have inspired the interviewing tools that have long been used in clinical and epidemiological research. Any DSM5 changes, in many cases likely very arbitrary, will require numerous changes in the interviewing tools that have long been used in clinical and epidemiological research. Aside from the needless cost and inconvenience, the lack of consistency in criteria and interviews will make it extremely difficult to interpret differences in findings across studies and across time. Impact on forensics-the most obviously detrimental suggestions are in the paraphilia section, where the proposed change to the definition of paraphilia and the likely suggestion to introduce a new diagnosis of “paraphilic coercive rapism” will greatly compound the significant mischief already initiated by a seemingly trivial change in DSM-IV. More generally, even small changes in wording can result in large forensic confusion once parsed by lawyers in their peculiarly rigorous and tendentious fashion. The wording of every suggested option in DSM5 needs careful review by forensic experts. Impact on dimensional diagnosis-DSM5 is planning to introduce a number of ad hoc, psychometrically untested dimensional measures that will likely bear little relation to the extensive and intensive study of dimensional diagnosis that is contained in the psychological literature. Introducing a poorly thought out and untested dimensional system may blind the field to the obvious eventual value of dimensional diagnosis. How can psychology help save DSM5? Although remarkably resistant to external scrutiny and advice, the DSM5 leadership has become grudgingly quite sensitive to external pressure. This is manifest in the following recent changes: 1) the appointment of a DSM5 oversight committee; 2) the postponement of what would have been ridiculously premature field trials until after the field can comment on the DSM5 drafts; 3) a welcome change in rhetoric from advertising an impossible “paradigm shift” to recognizing the need for caution, and; 4) a delay of one year in the projected publication deadline that will allow more time for the field to identify the major problems in DSM5 and demand their correction. All of these shifts have been due to pressure brought to bear externally. The previous hermetic sealing of the DSM5 process no longer holds now that its first drafts are finally in the public domain. Psychologists can exert two types of powerful influence on subsequent drafts. Most urgently needed are the comments of individual psychologists identifying the specific problems created by the DSM5 drafts and how these can best be resolved. If there is only a tepid response to the DSM5 postings during the brief time made available for public comment, the DSM5 leadership will likely take this as tacit indication that things are fine with DSM5- when surely that will not be the case. The professional organizations within psychology also have an important, if longer term, role in monitoring and moderating DSM5. It would be useful for interested groups to appoint their own DSM5 review committees to systematically and formally review the DSM5 drafts and provide institutional feedback to the American Psychiatric Association. Conclusions The next six months will probably be the most crucial in the development of DSM5. A previously closed process has finally gone public with very flawed first products. The DSM5 leadership has heretofore not been able to provide the discipline, monitoring, and editing necessary to identify, modify or eliminate suggestions that would be extremely problematic for all the mental health disciplines and for our patients and clients. DSM5 is a crucial part of clinical, research, and forensic work. It is far too important to be left solely in the not very sure hands of the DSM5 leadership. Individual psychologists and the professional associations within psychology can play an important role in pointing the way forward for DSM5 and in protecting it from costly mistakes.

Our Debt! What has government borrowed on your behalf?

Psychology Today — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 20:40:43 +0000

Millions, Billions, Trillions? Who can understand these amounts? Let’s put things into a perspective I can understand. For every $100 billion spending program, that is $325 for every person ($870 per household). A trillion dollar program costs us $3,250 per person ($8,700 per household). Given this context, just how much money has our local, state, and federal government obligated us for? In the table below, I have tried to find these debt and unfunded obligations. The total comes to $418,000 per person ($1,123,000 per household). Got your checkbook?

How sound skews the Academy Awards

Psychology Today — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 18:54:37 +0000

The Academy Awards ! The bling and the hoopla! The stars uncurling out of limousines-look at that dress, what was Björk thinking? It’s all good fun, but in recent years I have felt detached from the Oscars ceremony because, as a Dad, the only movies I tend to see in theaters are kids’ stuff: Harry Potter , Shrek , The Incredibles . And kids’ movies rarely get top honors. This year, though, will be different: this year I have actually seen two of the films most likely to win Best Picture . I suspect one reason Avatar and Hurt Locker are such strong contenders has to do with the fact that both are full of loud explosions. In Hurt Locker Jeremy Renner plays an army bomb squad sergeant in Iraq who enjoys a co-dependent relationship with massive bangs. In Avatar, a 3-D interstellar Western, the climactic scenes involve the supermechanized death-machine fleet of the Evil Mining Conglomerate (read railroad company) blowing sky-high the home turf of the tree-hugging Na’vi (read Sioux , or Nez Percé ). I remember sitting in the theater wearing silly glasses as the massive explosions swept from the sound system, so deep and loud that they shook my body, slightly but literally. Those poor sweet Na’vi, I thought then. Those multinational mining bastards, I raged inside. Likely I was the only person wearing silly glasses in the Harvard Square Loews that day to suspect both the high volume and low frequency of those explosions were geared to jack up our emotional response to the film. Sources I cannot name, because they work in the Industry, have told me that producers and big sound outfits like Dolby know well that very loud, low-frequency sounds trigger an out of proportion fear response in viewers. Those same sources claim sound engineers deliberately include loud noises well below the lowest frequencies that can be detected by our hearing system (20 Hertz) because, although we cannot hear such sounds directly, our body actually feels them. Studios apparently insist that theaters playing big-bang films be equipped with Dolby-type sub-woofers that can generate frequencies well below 20 Hz. This type of sound is called ” infrasound ,” and the weight of evidence suggests that humans instinctively react to major infrasound with feelings of awe, discomfort, even panic. Precisely what I’m supposed to feel as despite Jeremy Renner’s heroic efforts, the suicide bomber is blown to kingdom come. Why do we react this way to low-frequency noise? Well, consider the natural sources of infrasound: they include lightning, avalanches, earthquakes, stampeding buffalo, tsunamis, tornadoes. Over two million years of evolution those primates who could detect, and flee from, such dangers had an evolutionary edge over those who couldn’t. Since artillery and bombs are another source of infrasound, it may be that humans who react quickly to low frequency will be even more favored in the future. Other animals are more sensitive to infrasound than we are; the first hint many people in Thailand had that the 2004 tsunami was on its way was their dogs and cats high-tailing it for high ground. The apocryphal story of rats quitting doomed ships might have a glint of truth, in that animals would be more sensitive to infrasound noise generated by a hull’s structural defects. Chronic low-frequency noise is known to be harmful over the long term-in the long run, fear and discomfort produce stress, which corrodes our health. In a movie theater, however, we are not exposed long enough to suffer physical harm. Watching a film, we want to experience powerful, even unpleasant emotions, the better to empathize with the characters; the better to escape our daily grind. So infrasound, to my mind, is a legitimate tool to use. We might also want to remember, however, as James Cameron or Kathryn Bigelow thank the academy (and their fashion advisers and grade-school teachers), that part of the package that brought them to the podium was most likely crafted by sound engineers to trigger some of the most primal, unconscious reflexes known to man.

View original here:
How sound skews the Academy Awards

Oscars Psyche

Psychology Today — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 14:39:11 +0000

Tomorrow night the Oscars will be shown on TV and it is expected that possibly 50 million people will be watching! That’s a lot of people. 50,000,000! What’s up with that? There is the moment for each award – the moment of suspense. The presenters name all of the contenders and the camera shows us each of them awaiting their fate. Then there is the inevitable fumbling with the envelope, and the drawn out reading of the winner’s name. We are shown the winner’s initial reaction of complete satisfaction and hugging from family and co-workers followed by the acceptance speech thanking those who helped the winner reach that moment in their life. In between that happening time and again we are titillated with sexy images and some entertainment. Fifty-million people won’t be watching for the entertainment or even the sexy images. They will be watching because the show demonstrates what we all long for in the deepest recesses of our psyche – affirmation. Not to get all existential or anything, but we live our lives on the backdrop of anxiety about our goodness and our acceptability. Many messages we get in life point to how we are not good enough or not attractive enough to others. And, unfortunately, most of us do a poor job telling others when we do think they are great. Positive feedback s far less common than negative feedback: hence, the popularity of positive psychology. There is growing recognition worldwide that we need to do a much better job celebrating and leveraging our strengths – what’s best about us. No matter how much self-affirmation we can muster, most of us really, really appreciate affirmation from others. The Oscars represents the playing out of this human drama – living diligently in a landscape where affirmation is occasionally found. It is a sweet drink on our long journey. Watching the Oscars gives us a vicarious jolt of satisfaction. It gives us optimism that affirmation awaits us. And, it awakens our gratitude for the people and things that we do have in our lives. Each and every acceptance speech is one of gratitude. The show is a gushing gratitude orgy. Affirmation. Gratitude. Repeated over and over in dramatic fashion with highly pleasing visuals accompanying it all. What a recipe for success! My wish is that we all tried to make each and every day and Oscars event for one another. Tell the people around you how much you appreciate them and how much they mean to you. Don’t assume it is being “said without words”. And, live your life with a diligent commitment to living it authentically for that is the only way that affirmations from others will ever have the meaning that you want. The sweetest reward of affirmation is when it comes in response to you being your true self. Pay special attention to your signature strengths of character for they are the core around which you can build an authentic life. Go forth and produce your own Oscar show every day. You choose the winners. You give the acceptance speeches.

See original here:
Oscars Psyche

Why Life Outside of Time Makes Us Powerless

Psychology Today — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 13:46:39 +0000

Deborah Wearing ’s story is so powerful that my goosebumps cried when I read it. Her husband, Clive, lost his memory after contracting a virus that destroyed parts of his brain. He only ever lives in the now without a working memory of anything that happened before him. Not unlike Alzheimer’s patients whose hippocampus responsible for learning and long-term memory malfunctions, he can’t remember what happened just three minutes prior. Miraculously, he remembers his wife and delights each time he sees her. Since 1985 he has lived this way. Deborah divorced him, then remarried him about a decade later. After twenty-five years, he has been able to condition himself to understand his situation. His life is an example of how powerless always being in the now can be. While Eckhart Tolle rightfully suggests we embrace the Power of Now , it is based on the assumption that we have a past and, most likely, a future to which we can refer as we navigate through life. We are human beings with a history. It is what makes us become embedded in this thing called time. Imagine not having time as friend? Imagine living in an ever timeless state! It is stories like these that remind us how powerful time can be for us. It gives us a semblence of structure. It is the safety net that lets us know where we are, even if we feel lost. Time is by our side. Clive’s wife is by his. It is a story of true love and of what it means to be a time translator for those to whom time means nothing.

Read the original:
Why Life Outside of Time Makes Us Powerless