The recent shooting of American soldiers by a Muslim American military psychiatrist at Fort Hood made many Muslim Americans fear that this single attack in Texas will undermine the progress that has been made in relations between Muslim and non-Muslim Americans. They are worried that the outgroup homogeneity would lead people to make the false assumption that a Muslim man committing a crime is representative of other Muslims. Their worries may have a good reason.

Humans are a tribal species. The social psychological literature on intergroup relations is rich and diverse. For example, studies demonstrated that people make spontaneous ingroup-outgroup categorization and favor ingroup over outgroup members in a wide variety of situations. Furthermore, people have a specific stance with respect to outgroups and intergroup situations. When intergroup relations are salient, people readily show prejudice against members of outgroups and find it easy to morally justify  intergroup aggression and violence. The traditional explanation of these phenomena focuses on people’s ingroup psychology. That is, being a highly social and cooperative species, humans likely possess tendencies to exalt the ingroup. As a byproduct of favoring ingroups, people will show indifference toward, or worse, a dislike for outgroups. Recently, Mark Van Vugt and Justin H. Park offered another explanation that treated negativity toward outgroups as psychological tendencies –warfare and disease avoidance. More specifically, people are more likely to infrahumanize (e.g. denying outgroup member’s typical human qualities such as politeness and civility) members of outgroups, particularly when these outgroups constitute a coalitional treat. Moreover, for people within any given culture, certain outgroups may appear especially foreign with respect to disease-relevant domains, such as food preparation and hygiene practices. Because each culture has developed (via cultural evolution) its own set of practices for preventing infection, cultures with different practices – especially in the domains of food preparation and hygiene – may be perceived as posing disease threats. Thus, the perception of outgroups, particularly those that are subjectively foreign, may activate disease avoidance responses.

The evolutionary framework also makes various suggestions for interactions to improve intergroup relations, such as altering the perceptual cues that elicit threat responses toward particular outgroups,  or changing the specific cognitive and affective responses toward outgroups.

In the wake of Fort Hood: Prejudice is not the answer.

Mark Van Vugt & Justin H. Park. (2009). Guns, Germs, and Sex: How Evolution Shaped Our Intergroup Psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3,927-938.

Reassuring news for parents about violent videogames:

a new study released today shows that violence is not what attracts players. http://www.sciencentral.com…

Penn and Teller compare video games to football

Since its first release, the award-winning Call of Duty franchise has sold in excess of 55 million units worldwide. The latest title in the franchise, Infinity Ward’s Call of Duty(R):Modern Warfare(R) 2, recently shattered box office and video game records with a worldwide estimated five-day sale through of approximately $550 million, establishing the game as the biggest entertainment launch in history.

As is often the case I’m writing a blog post following a conversation I had during a training session. This one was about violence and aggression and how best to respond to it in social care settings. The theme of this particular conversation was not particularly about people whose aggression is fuelled by anger or violence but about those who are hostile primarily because they have learned that it works. There is an important principle here:

People learn best as a result of consequence.

What follows is an extract from AMJ training materials on violence and aggression………

There are four main reasons for aggression. These are……

1. Learned behaviour – the person believes that aggressive behaviour will get them what they want.

2. Fear – the person is using aggression as a means of self-defence.

3. Dislike – the person dislikes the other individual or group and believes that this gives them the right to hurt them, to take the law into their own hands, so to speak.

4. Invalidation – The person believes that they (and/or their needs) are not being taken seriously. This is one of the most common reasons for aggression and the destructive power of invalidation should not be underestimated.

It’s important that we understand the different types of reasons why people behave with hostility. Each one has it’s own motivation and needs to be dealt with in it’s own way.

For example – learned behaviour tends not to be associated with anger – the person hasn’t lost control at all. They are simply controlling their behaviour in order to do what works. These people intimidate because they have learned time and time again how effective this approach is. They were probably the school bully and have never really had cause to review their tactics before.

It’s probably not possible for you to change this – you won’t make them nice people who believe in equality overnight. But you can teach them not to treat you that way – that’s probably the best you can hope to achieve. Remember that they learned to bully and intimidate because it works. You need to teach them that it doesn’t work on you.

Have firm boundaries and make sure that there are very real consequences if they are crossed. For example – if your client intimidates you or your staff then perform a new risk assessment – and make sure that the risk assessment involves changes in practice. For example the next meetings will be at times when you can be accompanied by colleagues. If previous meetings were at the client’s home subsequent ones will be in the office in the presence of colleagues.

If the client actually assaults you or commits any other offence such as discrimination or verbal abuse then prosecute. This is the evidence they need that this sort of intimidatory behaviour will not work on you or any of your colleagues. Everyone must have the same boundaries and they must be enforced without exception. Otherwise they will not work.

Fear is linked to anger and will be dealt with later when we look at limbic system strategies.

Dislike is no reason to hurt or intimidate anyone. The idea that anyone has the right to do that simply because they dislike someone is extremely arrogant. This also needs firm boundaries from everyone in the team.

Invalidation and validation will be dealt with later in more depth.

It has always been a fact of life that everyone has needs, and that sometimes those individual needs conflict.  Sometimes there is a limited supply of a basic necessity and whoever is the strongest and most aggressive is the one who gets to live.  There is a good reason that people, and most animals, are instinctively attracted to dominant, alpha type personalities.

The problem is that aggression is not always the right solution for our problems.  There are many problems that can only be solved with gentleness and patience.  No amount of aggression and anger is going to heal.  Impatience and stress get in the way of creativity.  Any large project requires multiple people, and people will not tolerate anger and abuse indefinitely.  Patience and kindness work much better at bringing people together and getting things done.

As our minds and our society evolves it becomes more and more important to learn to set our own wants and needs to the side in order to work with others and to focus on the good of the group.  As the world becomes more and more complex, people need to specialize more and more.  Since we all need to specialize in order to function and perform large or highly complicated tasks aggression quite simply causes problems.  This does not mean it is “evil,” but it is inappropriate and it does get in the way.

The best thing to do to deal with aggression is to stare right at it, and ask yourself whether it really matters that you get what you want.  Does it really matter if your in charge?  Does it have to be perfect?  Does it really matter if someone disagrees with you?  Does everyone have to be right about everything?  Do you really need the best of everything?

If you truly believe that something is important, then you will get angry when you don’t get it.  This is instinct and will not go away, no matter how much you want it to.  This instinct is a good thing, and is there to protect you.  If you don’t want to get angry, what you need to focus on is not fighting the feeling, but fighting the incorrect idea that causes that feeling.  So long as you confuse wants and needs, you will be stressed out and angry.

If you think you need to win, then you will get angry when you do not win.  If you think it would be nice to win, but are really okay one way or the other; then you will have no issue.  Stop focusing on fighting anger and fight the causes of anger.  Focus on the disease, not the symptom.  Aggressive feelings and aggressive actions are rooted in aggressive ideas and beliefs.  You will never truly have peace if you do not learn that self control is not about the feelings, but about the thoughts that cause them.

Let go of excessive self importance.  This does not mean you are not important, but that your feelings or desires or needs are not always the most important.  Let go of the desire to always be in control.  This does not mean that there are not things that you can or should control, but that you don’t always need it.  You do not always have to win.  You do not have to always be the best.  These things are nice, and sometimes they are important, but you do not always need them all the time.

You do not need to fight aggression, you simply need to let go of the thoughts that cause it.  Aggression is not the solution to aggression.  Fighting your feelings only leads to more stress, and damages you.  Listen, examine, understand, and when needed let go.

I love aquatic insects!  They do some amazing things and are incredibly interesting animals.  That said, I feel like most people know very little about aquatic insects and the role they play in our world.  Heck – some people don’t know that aquatic insects even exist!  So, for my first From the Literature post, I thought I’d discuss a recent paper dealing with aquatic insects.

In biology, it is thought that males benefit from mating with as many females as possible.  Because males usually do not care for their offspring and invest little in producing sperm, it is best for them to mate with as many females as they can, thereby contributing their genes to as many offspring as possible.  There are, of course, exceptions to this general rule (the giant water bugs I study are an excellent example!), but it holds true for many species.  Because females usually make a greater investment in their children – if nothing else, eggs are much more nutritionally expensive to produce than sperm – they often cannot mate as often as males.  As they contribute their genes to fewer offspring, it is to their benefit to choose the best mates, the ones that will likely produce strong and robust children that have a high chance of surviving to adulthood.  In essence, there is a battle of the sexes going on: males want to mate all the time with every female they can find while females want to mate with only the best males.  It pays for a male to be aggressive and secure as many mates as possible while it pays for a female to be choosy.  In essence, there is a trade-off between what males want and what females want: when one sex succeeds, the other suffers.

In this image by Omar Eldakar, a hyper-aggressive male (on the right) attempts to break up a mating pair of water striders. The colored dots were used by the researchers to keep track of individuals.

This idea sets the stage for a recent paper by Dr. Omar Eldakar (currently a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Arizona) and his colleagues published in the November 6, 2009 issue of Science.  Eldakar and his team studied a type of aquatic insect called water striders (order: Hemiptera, family: Gerridae).  Water striders (also known as Jesus bugs, water spiders, and pond skaters) are long, skinny insects that live and hunt on the surface of water.  Water striders are typically found in groups of several individuals called aggregations in calm areas of streams and ponds.

The species Eldakar studied is Aquarius remigis and it is well-known for its battle of the sexes.  Many male A. remigis individuals are highly aggressive when pursuing females, lunging at and jumping on their potential mates.  While the females often resist  mating with these hyper-aggressive males, the behavior has been known to improve mating success.  Aggressive males are usually more successful at securing mates than non-aggressive males.  This leads to a question: if aggressive males mate with more females than non-aggressive males, why aren’t ALL males aggressive?  Eldakar and his colleagues wondered if the fact that most studies of sexual conflict in water striders do not allow individuals to migrate between aggregations might explain why hyper-aggressive males are reportedly so successful.  If females are forced to remain in an area with hyper-aggressive males, the males might have a higher mating success than if the females could be choosier about who they mated with.

Eldakar and his colleagues set up an ingenious experiment to test this idea.  First, they placed water striders in an artificial pond and observed male aggression, movement of females, and mating attempts/successes.  Water striders were able to form their own aggregations and move freely between them.  The researchers then divided the pond into several sections, placing males of various aggression levels with females in each section.  The same observations were made, though this time individuals were not able to move between groups.  Finally, the group compared their observations of the open treatments to the closed treatment to see how movement contributed to the mating success of aggressive and non-aggressive males.  They discovered some interesting things.

As had been reported in other water strider studies, hyper-aggressive males had more successful mating attempts than the non-aggressive males in the closed system.  If females were not able to move to another aggregation (i.e. their choices in mates were restricted), they mated more frequently with the aggressive males than the non-aggressive males.  However, when the striders were able to move between groups, Eldakar observed that females moved to other aggregations when harassed by aggressive males.  Aggressive males repelled the females they wanted to mate with!  The females would, however, readily mate with the less aggressive males in their new areas.  This meant that less aggressive males were able to secure many more mates in open systems than in closed systems.  In other words, the females avoided the aggressive jerks and the nice guys were getting the girls!

I think this is a great paper.  The experiment was very simple, but it ended up revealing a lot of information.  Many scientists call this sort of experiment “elegant” and I think this research certainly qualifies as an elegant experiment.  Eldakar was able to refute the findings of several previous papers with an experiment that should be very easy for others to duplicate, one of the conditions for good science.  He also clearly reminded biologists of one of the perils of doing behavioral research in the lab: unnatural conditions sometimes lead to unnatural behaviors.  As a behavioral researcher myself, I think this isn’t reinforced enough.  By modifying what had been done in the past, by allowing aggregations of water striders to form naturally rather than forcing them into pre-determined groups, Eldakar learned that aggressive males are not always the most successful in nature.  This corrected what we already knew and gave us some great information that will be useful for many future studies.  Thanks, Dr. Eldakar!

Literature Cited:

Eldakar OT, Dlugos MJ, Pepper JW, & Wilson DS (2009). Population structure mediates sexual conflict in water striders. Science (New York, N.Y.), 326 (5954) PMID: 19892974

_______________

Text copyright © 2009 DragonflyWoman.wordpress.com.

Susanns Zustand verschlimmert sich von Tag zu Tag. Ihre Aggressivität wächst ständig, besonders gegenüber Ruth.

Susann reinszeniert, was das Zeug hält. Sie hält Ruth für ihre leibliche Mutter, kann nicht mehr unterscheiden. Sie war damals dabei, als ihr Vater sie erschlagen hat. Aber auch ihre Mutter muss ihr viel angetan haben.

„Susann, kommst du bitte in den Keller. Wir müssen die Wäsche aufhängen.“

„Nein, wieso.“

„Weil auch deine Wäsche dabei ist.“

Susann tobt.

„Du hast mir gar nichts zu sagen. Du bist richtig unverschämt.“

Ruth stürzt nach oben in die Küche. Sie ist in Tränen aufgelöst. Susann schlägt ihre Zimmertür hinter sich zu.

Ruth fällt mir schluchzend in die Arme. „Niko, ich halte das nicht mehr aus. Warum macht sie das mit mir? Warum macht sie unsere Familie kaputt? Was mache ich denn falsch? Ich hab doch gar nichts Schlimmes gemacht!“

Mir fallen alle möglichen guten Ratschläge von Ämtern, Fachleuten und anderen Pflegeeltern ein.

„Nehmt Euch das nicht zu Herzen.“

„Sie meint gar nicht Euch.

„Holt Euch kompetente Hilfe.

Aus Seminaren mit Fachleuten weiß ich, was da passiert. Ich weiß, dass Susann Ruth gar nicht meint. Ich kenne die Mechanismen. Und wenn es ernst wird, wenn man Forderungen hat, ernst genommen werden will, ist plötzlich keiner mehr da. Dann ist alles zu teuer oder nicht notwendig.

Und was nützt es uns? In der Situation nützen keine wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisse. Alle die, die von uns Professionalität verlangen, haben keine Ahnung. Professionelle Erzieher und Sozialarbeiter gehen abends nach Hause zu ihrer Familie. Wir sind Familie, von der geballten Kraft der Emotionen betroffen.

Ich bin mir sicher, wir schaffen das nicht alleine, wir brauchen Fachleute. Es gibt da die Möglichkeit der psychotherapeutischen Tageskliniken. Susann würde morgens dort hin abgeholt werden, eine Therapie machen und abends bei uns sein. Der Vorteil wäre, dass wir abends daran weiter arbeiten könnten, woran sie tagsüber gearbeitet hätte. Wir wären auch ganz stark mit einbezogen und zugleich entlastet.

Die andere Möglichkeit wäre eine längere, mehrwöchige stationäre Therapie. In den meisten Kliniken wären wir in den Therapieprozess mit einbezogen. Daran anschließen würde sich eine gute, wirksame Traumatherapie, die Schritt für Schritt die Situation verbessern würde. Aber ich habe auch schon recherchiert, dass es Kliniken gibt, die nur ganz allgemein therapieren, die mit Susanns Problemen wahrscheinlich gar nicht klar kommen würden. Das heißt, eine Unterbringung käme erst in Frage, nachdem ich mir die Klinik angesehen und mit den Ärzten gesprochen hätte. Wir wollen Susann auf keinen Fall irgend wo hin abschieben.

Ein kalter Januartag auf der Autobahn. Ich bin auf dem Weg in die Selbbachklinik. Die Chefärztin der Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie hat mir schnell und unkompliziert einen Termin gegeben. Von der Arbeit aus fahre ich siebzig Kilometer durch Dunkel und Schneetreiben. Die Klinik ist mir empfohlen worden. Der Internetauftritt verspricht Gutes: Gruppen- und Einzeltherapie, EMDR und Tramatherapien, die Susann helfen könnten. Eine Chefärztin mit Reputation und Engagement. Nur, dass die Chefärztin, die im Internet noch für die Klinik wirbt, plötzlich nicht mehr auffindbar ist. Die Klinik teilte mir mit, dass sie dort nicht mehr tätig sei. Egal. Kann eine Klinik so schnell ihren therapeutischen Ansatz wechseln?

Das Gelände ist schön. Bewaldet, mitten in einer natürlichen Umgebung. Schon stelle ich mir vor, wie wir Susann besuchen, wie wir mit Ärzten und Pflegern an Susanns Problemen kompetent zusammen arbeiten.

Die Chefärztin ist nett, ruhig und kompetent. Der Therapiehund liegt, erschöpft von seinem Tagewerk, zu meinen Füßen. Auf der Station geht es entspannt zu.

Ich schildere Susanns und unsere Probleme. Die Chefärztin hört ruhig zu und macht sich Notizen.

Dann ihre Einschätzung.

„Wissen Sie, wir sind eine Rehabilitationsklinik. Wir sind keine therapeutische Klinik. Die Kinder, die zu uns kommen, haben Probleme, ja. Und wir können sie meistens lösen. Aber wir gehen da ganz konventionell vor. EMDR wenden wir nicht mehr an. Ihre Pflegetochter ist ja, nach Ihrer Beschreibung zu urteilen, stark traumatisiert. Wir haben hier nicht die Möglichkeit einer Diagnostik. Da spielt das Verhalten auch eine große Rolle. Zum Schutz unserer anderen Patienten können wir aggressive Ausbrüche nicht dulden.“

Und was heißt das?

„In solchen Fällen würden wir das Kind sofort entlassen.“

Ich bemühe mich, freundlich zu sein und Verständnis zu zeigen.

„Sollten Sie sich für einen Aufenthalt entscheiden, können Sie mich jederzeit wieder anrufen.“

Ja, danke. Was soll das Ganze? Warum fahre ich hier stundenlang durch den Schnee? Nur um zu erfahren, dass Fachleute eigentlich auch nicht weiter wissen und letztendlich unbequeme Kinder abschieben? Das wollten wir nun gerade nicht.

Wie oft haben wir es schon gehört: Ein ganz komplizierter Fall, schwierig, jahrelange Therapie, schwer zu behandeln, überfordert unsere Möglichkeiten. Was denken diese Leute eigentlich, in welcher Situation wir sind??

Immerhin: Ich bin vorgelassen worden, ernst genommen worden, habe auf Augenhöhe mit einer Chefärztin reden können. Das streichelt etwas mein Ego.

Aber das alles bringt uns keinen Deut weiter.

I’m so looking forward to today because I am meeting up with Julie at The Lawns kennels.  We’re going to……

“Büro ist Krieg” (Chef Stromberg)

Der tägliche Wahnsinn in Betrieben und Büros kann seltsame Stilblüten annehmen. Hier habe ich einige gefunden, was in einem Büro so alles passieren kann. Sehen Sie selbst:

Da könnte es Ihnen doch glatt so gehen, wie dieser Dame hier. Nach außen hin aufpoliertes, freundliches Image, nach innen hin alles andere:

Strategien gegen Frust

Was tun nun mit dem Frustpegel im Job? Schreiben Sie eine Liste mit Ihren stärksten Stressoren und untersuchen Sie Ihren Tagesablauf nach persönlichen Motivationskillern. Halten Sie Ihre Beobachtungen in einem Art Tagebuch fest, das Sie dann in einer ruhigen Minute auswerten und sehr wahrscheinlich Muster erkennen werden. Sobald Sie dies erst einmal erkannt haben, können Sie in einem nächsten Schritt die Veränderung angehen. Es gibt drei Arten der Heransgehensweise:

Strategie 1: Love it!

Akzeptieren Sie die Dinge, wie Sie sind. Lernen Sie, mit der Unperfektheit von Menschen, Ihrer Organisation und der Welt Frieden zu schließen. Es macht keinen Sinn, permanent gegen die Umstände zu rebellieren und sich immer wieder daran zu stoßen. Wenn Sie dies nicht wollen:

Strategie 2: Leave it!

Gehen Sie! Suchen Sie sich einen anderen Job, in der Hoffnung, dass es das nächste mal besser wird. Die Erfahrung: Es ist nur am Anfang besser, weil alles neu und interessant erscheint. Setzt die Gewöhnung des Alltags ein, verliert das meiste seinen Glanz und wird alltäglich. Das ist in jeder Partnerschaft und Ehe so. Die Psychodynamik dahinter ist recht ähnlich: Man erhofft sich beim nächsten Partner, bei der nächsten Partnerin das Paradies und erlebt den gleichen Frust nur in anderer Coleur mit der neuen Beziehungskonstellation. Irgendwie scheint es auch an einem selbst zu liegen. Es bringt also nur bedingt etwas, den Job zu wechseln, die Unzufriedenheit wird Sie bald wieder einholen.

Strategie 3: Change it!

Das ist schon die größere Herausforderung. Noch dazu, sie wird unter Umständen anstrengend und erfordert persönlichen Einsatz. Veränderungen und Verbesserungen fallen nicht einfach so vom Himmel, sondern müssen hart, langfristig und geduldig erkämpft werden. Gelingt es, genügend Durchhaltevermögen und Disziplin an den Tag zu legen, kann Verbesserung tatsächlich möglich werden. Hierzu braucht es allerdings einer begründeten Hoffnung auf Verbesserungswahrscheinlichkeit und konkreter Ideen, wo man ansetzen kann. Ein Coach kann hier Wunder wirken, weil er die Welt mit anderen Augen sieht.

‘If filling the gas tank fills you with rage, it might be the fumes you’re breathing, not the prices you’re paying. A new study shows rats exposed to gasoline fumes became more aggressive, with repeated exposure altering their brain structures—a finding that could also apply to humans and road rage, Wired reports.

‘“Heightened aggression may be yet another risk for the human population chronically exposed to urban air polluted by automobile smoke,” said the scientist who led the study. “Millions of people every day are exposed to gasoline fumes while refueling their cars.”’ -Wired

Temperature

Anderson – Data on rates of violent and non violent crime recorded. Found crime to be more prevalent during hotter times of the year.

• + Correlation between temperature and aggression
• + High ecological validity
• -Population bias as only studied criminals
• -Do other factors e.g. lower personal wealth lead to crime?

Kenrick 1986 – Confederate blocked a road junction whilst experimenter recorded three measures:

• Time it took for drivers to honk their horns
• Number of honks
• Total time spent honking

Study took place in Phoenix, under temperatures of 84 to 108F and found a positive correlation between temperature and the three recorded measures.

• +High ecological validity
• -Is horn honking an example of aggression?
• -Only studied drivers – lacks population validity
• -Culture bias – study in USA

Routine Activity Theory – For a crime to occur three things must happen in the same place at the same time:

• Suitable target
• Lack of guardian to prevent the crime
• Motivated offender present

Cohn states temperature as a reason which determines when offenders and victims come into contact, as victims more likely to leave their homes during pleasant weather.

Crowding

• Loo 1979 – Levels of aggression higher when numbers of children in a nursery increased.
  • Supports SLT – aggressive children receive attention, so others learn to be aggressive
• Calhoun – Rats kept in crowded compartments. Dominant rats claimed most of the available space and in the remaining territory behaviour and health deteriorated until a 96% infant mortality rate.
• Schmitt – Found as pop density in Honolulu increased so did rates of crime, death and metal disorders.
• Macintyre and Homel 1997 – Level of crowding in Australian nightclubs is related to aggressive incidents. Found this aggression is often due to intersecting traffic flows created by bad design – e.g. poor location of toilets.

Noise

• Noise alone may not cause aggression, but it acts as a proximal determinant, increasing the likelihood of an aggressive response in someone already angered.
• Green and O’Neil 1975 – Half pps shown aggressive film, half a non-violent film. Half of both group then exposed to 60db white noise. Pps more aggressive when exposed to white noise if had seen the aggressive film.
• Donnerstein and Wilson 1976 – Half pps angered by a confederate. Both groups then told to give electric shocks under one of three conditions:
  • When exposed to uncontrollable noise
  • When exposed to a noise they could turn off
  • Control group (no noise)

         Angry pps gave higher intensity shocks – highest intensity given by pps exposed to uncontrollable noise.

• Konecni 1975 – Half pps angered by confederate. Then half of each group exposed to noise. Pps not angered administered same shock level regardless of if exposed to noise. Those already angered administered higher voltage shocks.

The Neocon Republican Terrorist vision of a divided and segregated America, where everybody that is not a white Anglo-saxon Christian is considered cannon fodder and trash, is coming to fruition. It is reminiscent of the reaction to the new population of freed slaves that the white former slave masters had after they were soundly defeated in the Civil War by the Union army.

This is the period in our history called Reconstruction where,for a decade after the Civil War,blacks gained political power, and some attained financial wealth as well.

During Reconstruction, southern whites turned violent when they saw blacks making major gains.

 Reconstruction was followed in the South by domination by the Democratic Party and the enactment of Jim Crow laws, grandfather clauses and similar measures. The bitterness and repercussions from the heated conflicts of the era lasted well into the twentieth century.

Read more about the Reconstruction era here… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_era_of_the_United_States 

Southern state governments quickly enacted the restrictive “black codes“. However, they were abolished in 1866 and seldom had effect, because the Freedman’s Bureau (not the local courts) handled the legal affairs of freedmen.

The Black Codes indicated the plans of the southern whites for the former slaves.^[24] The freedmen would have more rights than did free blacks before the war, but they still had only a limited set of second-class civil rights, no voting rights, and, since they were not citizens, they could not own firearms, serve on a jury in a lawsuit involving whites or move about without employment.^[25] The Black Codes would limit blacks’ ability to control their own employment. The Black Codes outraged northern opinion. They were overthrown by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 that gave the Freedmen full legal equality (except for the right to vote).^[26

 There were many reported murders of blacks in the south during reconstruction, but many killings of blacks went unreported, and by all accounts, millions upon millions of African-Americans were killed by the hands of bitter southerners, as reported in this account taken from Wikipedia by a soldier visiting from the North...

The number of murders and assaults perpetrated upon Negroes is very great; we can form only an approximate estimate of what is going on in those parts of the South which are not closely garrisoned, and from which no regular reports are received, by what occurs under the very eyes of our military authorities. As to my personal experience, I will only mention that during my two days sojourn at Atlanta, one Negro was stabbed with fatal effect on the street, and three were poisoned, one of whom died.

In todays modern post-racial world, we have organizations and groups that have a mission to keep track of, and to investigate the existence of, the number of racially motivated,or bias motivated crimes against minorities,religious groups, gay Americans.

Currently, America is going through another Reconstruction like era,as we are experiencing the racial backlash of hatred based on the election of our first black president,Barack Obama.

The election of Barack has caused a rise in all forms of hate crimes, as well as the emergence of the Ku Klux Klan as a force to stoke the flames of hatred and encouraging physical action of violence against blacks, Gays, and all other religious groups that are not Christian.

What is most distressing is that the tide of racial violence is being egged on and financed by the foreigner Rupert Murdoch, and the entire Republican party,that at one time represented the opposite of what they believe in now.

For a group that, centuries ago, used to be the main supporter of civil rights, they currently are the main driving force behind this increasing tide of racism and bigotry that is the rage in most of the states in America.

The racist are moving from the south, and invading the once liberal California, in order to spread their southern tradition of hatred and illiteracy. Hate crimes based on sexual orientation shot up 21 percent in Los Angeles County last year, while religious crimes increased 14 percent, because the southern bigots have moved in.

The Daily News in Los Angeles reports that...in 2008  in the Valley,James Shamp, an African-American man who worked as a janitor at a bowling alley in Canoga Park, was shot to death as he was throwing out trash. According to the report, three members of the Canoga Park Alabama gang, which has a long history of violent anti-black crimes, were arrested and charged with murder and hate crime enhancements.

The San Fernando Valley had the most amount of hate crimes in the Los Angeles area.

"Whenever I look at a map of hate crimes, I find there is a great diversity of hate crimes that occur in the San Fernando Valley," said Robin Toma, executive director of the commission. "You have anti-Semitic hate crimes, homophobic hate crimes and racially motivated hate crimes. There is also the phenomena of racialized gang violence."

Sexual orientation hate crimes rose the most last year, with more than 80 percent targeting gay men and at least nine crimes traced to Proposition 8.

A report on a sexually motivated hate crime from the Daily News... A white lesbian couple walking hand-in-hand on the beach in Malibu. The mother of a white tourist family from Arkansas told them, "You are going to burn in hell!" and dumped her water bottle on one of them and punched one in the face...

Please keep that level of ignorance in Arkansas,...and my family is from Arkansas.

The election of the first black president and hot-button issues such as abortion and gay marriage contributed to the spikes, anti-bias groups say. Public figures like Sarah Palin and Glen Beck have done a lot to cause the current racial hatred that whites are visiting on all others.

The two of them have been quite effective when it come to rallying sympathy for groups like the KKK and the Nazis.

USA TODAY is reporting that the number of attacks on blacks increased 8% to 2,876, accounting for seven of every 10 race-motivated crimes.

"There is this kind of extremism going on," says Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP Washington bureau. He says Obama's election and the recession led to a backlash against blacks as some people look for someone to blame for hard economic times. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-11-23-hate-crimes_N.htm

I say to the world, this is a good look at the so-called ''Post-Racial'' America, a country where race relations and the unity of the races has been usurped by the in vogue traditional American practice of racial bias,hatred and division.

Our country has been going through this cycle for well over a Hundred and 8o years, and by the looks of things, that sad tradition will continue.

What do we do to end this....will we come together, or will we have to resort to our primal instinct, where only the strong survive.

I think that based on 200 years of data and statistics, the tradition of racism is alive, well, and thriving in the United States, and that we are guilty of the same atrocities against humanity...our own people, that we so blatantly accuse our so-called enemies of doing to their minority populations.

We are all truly hypocrites.

Read more on this story from these trusted sources…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/23/hate-crime-on-rise-gay-re_n_368276.html

http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_13829526

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2009/11/20/LA-sees-hike-in-certain-hate-crimes/UPI-95381258737529/

Dave Hill - Workplace Violence Article

This is our dog Megan. She has anger management issues. Our family life is kept hectic- transporting kids to activities such as soccer games and practices, music lessons, etc. There are days when we rush home to grab some high speed food and then dash out the door again. Our dog, Megan, follows us around the house putting on her “pretty face”- puppy eyes, ears pricking up, and a goofy smile just to entice us to love her so much that we will take her for a long walk. As we rush out the door, we say goodbye to her, and you can see the bitter disappointment in her face. We return a few hours later to find the contents of a waste paper basket strewn all over the floor. She looks at us sheepishly with guilt written all over her face. She does not make eye contact when we reprimand her and call her a “Garbage Dog”. I often wonder what goes on in her mind once we leave the house. Does she get animated and verbally angry? “I hate this family, I sit here all day waiting for them to come home and take me for a walk and they just come home to taunt me. Why do they bother to come home if they don’t want to go for a walk? I bet they are out there walking some other dog. I hate them, I hate them so much. I am so angry; I am going to show them who is the boss in this house. I am going to throw the garbage. Dirty tissues, candy wrappers and other nasty stuff – that will teach them a lesson. Oh no, what have I done, they will never forgive me…”
The dog throwing the garbage is a frequent demonstration of aggression. I would like to be able to say that all acts of aggression that have crossed my path are laughable and tolerable; however, that is not the case. I have been on the receiving end of workplace verbal aggression that humiliated me and sucked the energy out of me, but most importantly, I have witnessed the end of someone’s career when physical violence came into the scene.

Dave Hill - Article on Workplace Violence

It was Christmas day, December 25th, 1981, and I was on a cargo ship in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Christmas, the season of good will, was about to unravel at the seams and result in an engineer officer getting sacked. There were personality conflicts between some of the senior officers and the junior officers, and “pushing buttons” to get a reaction was the game at hand. An engineer cadet mischievously took a bite out of the 2nd Mate’s (deck officer) sandwich without asking as he was out of the room. He got rebuked and jostled by the 3rd engineer officer, which caused the 6th engineer officer to react violently and beat up the 3rd engineer. With emotions in the room flaring, the scene progressed when the 2nd deck officer came back into the room to find a fight scene just finishing, and a part of his sandwich missing. With anger, he shouted at the 6th engineer, “If you hit me that will be the end of your career.” That’s when the 6th engineer officer hit him in the face, and the 2nd mate fell down, concussed. Merry Christmas, all. The 6th engineer was sacked when the ship got into port a few weeks later. It most likely ended his career.

To this day, I still wonder how a good engineer could end up getting sacked over a sandwich. How did the personality conflicts deteriorate and get so out of hand? How and why did physical violence invade the workplace?

What Can We Learn From This?
As an engineer of nearly 30 years, I have grown to learn that conflict is a natural part of working with people. I have also grown to learn the importance of dealing with conflict, rather than living with it. Differences of opinion, different motivations, emotional conflicts, misunderstandings, ignorance, manipulation, and prejudice are just a few of the aspects that can “light the fuse” of a conflict. If not managed appropriately, conflict can potentially escalate to violence. What are some of the devastating effects that can result from conflict in the workplace?
• Loss of respect and trust
• Employees setting each up for failure
• A culture of doing the minimum
• Increased turnover of valued employees
• Loss of profits
• Energy levels and creativity are sucked out of the workplace
• Deadlines get missed
• Teams that are not cohesive become inefficient

Ten Ways Exceptional Workplaces Handle Worker Conflict and Violence
1. Train people at all levels of the organization in conflict management, negotiation skills, and listening skills
2. Deal with conflict right away, rather than having it fester in the background
3. Have zero tolerance for violence
4. Hire people with exceptional communication skills and impeccable ethics
5. Do thorough background checks when hiring
6. Address unresolved conflicts efficiently and effectively through workplace resources and have a policy and a process that is flexible enough to cover different scenarios
7. Develop a culture of respect and trust, and have a workplace that embraces diversity
8. Energize and empower employees.
9. Create a workplace with an aura of balanced fun-energy. Levity can help derail conflict in the heat of the moment.
10. Evoke an open-door culture where employees will speak up when they identify that conflict is not getting resolved, or if they have a concern that it may escalate to violence

Further information on this subject can be found at www.fbi.gov/publications/violence.pdf

If you have any advice, thoughts, or comments on conflict and violence in the workplace, please feel free respond to this blog or send me an e-mail at dave@davehillspeaks.com

Dave’s Public Speaking Website (Bio, Keynotes, Workshops, etc.) www.davehillspeaks.com

Copyright © 2009 Dave Hill Speaks LLC all rights reserved

The AP (http://tinyurl.com/abilify-for-autism 11/21) reported that the FDA “has approved top-selling Abilify [aripiprazole] as a treatment for autism-related irritability in children from the ages of six 17…Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. said Friday.” The agency’s “latest approval allows the” medication “to be used to treat symptoms associated with autism, such as aggression toward others, deliberate infliction of self-injury, tempter tantrums, and moodiness.” Bristol-Myers and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., collaborators on the development and distribution of Abilify in the US and Europe, “said in a statement that it was intended to be used as part of a more comprehensive treatment program that includes educational, psychological, and social aspects.”

es ist nicht gut, wenn man am montagabend nicht mehr weiss, dass montag ist. das ist zumindest bedenklich.

die busfahrer-episode: er duzte mich. was mich einigermassen erstaunte, hatte ich mich doch schon länger nicht mehr rasiert. was mich, so dachte ich auf jeden fall bis zu diesem moment, älter macht. er aber duzte mich. 

er sah merkwürdig aus: graues langes haar zu einem engen zopf gebunden, ein bart, ebenfalls grau. und ein wenig gedrungen, beleibt, füllig. nicht übermässig. aber trotzdem, er hatte etwas imposantes, ja aggressives, schon rein äusserlich. ich war ein wenig eingeschüchtert. spürte dieses unangenehme ziehen in der bauchgegend. wenn man vor einer ungerechtigkeit steht, wenn man infrage gestellt wird in seiner integrität, wenn man beleidigt wird. dann fühlt man das. ich aber sagte nichts. wie meistens.

es ist montag. jetzt weiss ich es.

As you might remember, last week I was offered a job, found out that job was shit, got offered another job within the same company, said no thanks to the first job and told they were very interested in me for the second job. That is the extremely short version of what happened last week; and I am in no mood to link to these articles, as you will soon learn why.

They wanted me to take some kind of personality test for the second job; because the person in charge is apparently not good enough to judge if someone is cut out for the job. Talk about trusting their own colleagues. I was told to answer the questions honestly, which I did and took as a given.

I got a call earlier today that their HR department claimed my test score was not what they were looking for; and they did not like that I stepped down from the first job. In other words, they did not want to hire me as I put my foot down and demanded respect; because this is obviously a company that is not interested in hiring experienced personal that demand to be treated with respect and according to law and worker’s rights.
Shame on me for demanding such a thing; I should be happy to be offered a job, right?

Bollocks!

I have truly never seen so much bullshit in my life. When it comes to finding work, this has been and still are the worst experience I have ever had. Is it really that bad demanding to be treated with respect from an employer? I have never experienced that speaking up for my rights as an employee would jeopardise my job.
This is madness.

Hopefully I have just been very unlucky, because so far my experience in Australia is not a pretty one. So far the only joy and reason that keeps me here is Lizzie. Other than that I am truly hoping to get my bachelor degree and that she gets her masters degree so we can escape back to Europe; hopefully we will end up in Gothenburg, Sweden.

I have nothing more to say…

I got 80% in this:

Bandura’s Social Learning Theory suggests that acts of aggression are learnt through the observation of role models. His original “Bobo Doll” study showed that when exposed to aggressive behaviour small children copied this behaviour, not just by being physically aggressive but even copying the verbally aggressive behaviour. However this study focuses on children who are supposed to learn in this manner, this doesn’t demonstrate that this would also be true in older children or adults who already have a set moral compass that would interfere with copying aggressive behaviours. However Bandura’s later study showed that if children saw someone get punished for aggressive behaviour they were less likely to be aggressive themselves when they were allowed to play with the bobo doll but if they saw someone get rewarded for this aggressive behaviour then they were much more likely to act aggressively themselves, this shows that vicarious reinforcement is important to the learning of aggression through the social learning theory, as receiving direct positive reinforcement leads to people having high self efficacy making them very likely to repeat the aggressive behaviour that they were rewarded for. In terms of aggression this reward could come in many forms such as acceptance from a violent gang they want to be a part of or just attention from a parent or teacher. This theory is supported by Phillips who found that when boxing matches were shown on the television there was a clear correlation between that showing times are the increased rates of homicide soon after that time suggesting that after seeing aggressive behaviour on the television people are more inclined to act aggressively or with a stronger level of aggression leading to homicide. The suggestion that aggression is learnt from those around you explains why there is a large amount of variation of crime rates according to different geographical and social areas as context dependant learning means that if you are surrounded by crime you are more likely to commit a crime leading to areas having high crime rates. However the social learning theory does not explain what triggers aggression.

Zimbardo’s theory of Deindividuation suggests that aggressive behaviour occurs in groups as a person’s normal constraints become weakened when they are part of a group as they take of the identity of the crowd as they feel that when part of a group their own actions are no longer bad making aggressive behaviour easier as they do not seem it as themselves carrying out the aggressive behaviour but the group as a whole as they become faceless, just part of the group not an individual. Commonly members of violent or aggressive groups have a reduced private self awareness as they have some kind of tie to the rest of the group that makes them become a faceless member of the crowd, examples of this are common items of clothing in gangs and at football matches as supporters wear the same clothing and are all sat together. Zimbardo formed this theory around his Stanford Prison experiment where when the guards were giving a common uniform they became much more aggressive in their behaviour towards the prisoners as they became “guards” so felt that as a guard behaviour they would normally not see as acceptable suddenly became the appropriate response to their own frustrations. However in contrast with this the prisoners were all deindividuated but apart from one small failed act of rebellion they did not become aggressive, in fact they became more obedient and passive, this suggests the Deindividuation of an individual as part of a group only leads to aggressive behaviour if aggression is what is expected of the group such as violence being the expected behaviour from teenage gangs. However Mann’s study on crowd baiting did support Zimbardo’s theory s he found by researching in newspapers that crowds often founded around suicidal people, and as a group they encouraged the person to jump. Mann suggested that this phenomenon occurred because the individuals felt they couldn’t be identified individually as being part of the group due to the large size of the group and the large distance between themselves and the suicidal person so they felt no interpersonal link. However the finds of this study are only based upon his search of newspapers making his finding reductionist as he has only been searching for the type of crowd he needs to support his theory and newspapers are not a reliable source. However unlike Zimbardo’s prison experiment Mann’s has high ecological validity as he uses real-life situations to form his conclusion.  Like Bandura’s Social Learning Theory this doesn’t explain what causes aggression but this does suggest that in some causes individuals themselves do not feel any kind of cue for the aggression they demonstrate but act in that way because the rest of the group does explaining how large scale acts of aggression can commonly occur as it could only require a small number of people to actually have a cue such as frustration to trigger the aggressive behaviour.

What is the role of serotonin in causing aggression? – evaluate studies

• Cases 1995- serotonin in normal levels inhibits neuronal firing, low levels particularly in the prefrontal cortex makes individuals less able to control their impulsive and aggressive responses.
• Brown et al 1982- major metabolite (waste product) of serotonin tends to be low in the cerebrospinal fluid in impulsive and aggressive people.
• Mann et al 1990- gave drug dexfenfluramine known to deplete serotonin levels and in a questionnaire found in males hostility and aggression had increased after treatment with the drug.

Evaluation:

• Arora and Meltzer 1989- not caused by low levels of serotonin but low serotonin metabolism leading to increased numbers of receptors, they found a relationship between violent suicide and elevated serotonin receptor density.
• Mann et al 1996- amongst suicide victims those with increased numbers of pre-frontal cortex serotonin receptors had chosen more violent methods of suicide.
• Badawy 2006­- explains link between alcohol and aggression as acute alcohol intake causes a major disturbance in the metabolism of brain serotonin, leading to depleted serotonin levels, possibly leading to violence.
• Ferrari et al 2003- rats allowed fighting at same time every day for 10 days, on 11^th day not allowed to fight but in anticipation of imminent fight lead to decreased serotonin levels, experience has changed the brain chemistry consistent with the onset of aggressive behaviour.
• Davidson et al 2000- serotonin is not the only influence on behaviour, research on animals suggests serotonin inhibits aggressive tendencies; tame domestic pets have much higher levels of serotonin than rats.
• Raleigh et al 1991- vervet monkeys fed diets high in tryptophan (increases serotonin levels) exhibited decrease aggression. Low tryptophan diets led to increased aggressive behaviour.
• Popova 1991- in animals bred of domestication and docile temperaments there is an increase over generations in concentrations of serotonin in the brains.
• Bond 2005- antidepressant drugs that elevate serotonin levels reduce irritability and impulsive aggression.

What is the role of dopamine in causing aggression? – evaluate studies

• Lavine 1997- increases in dopamine activity is associated with increases in aggressive behaviour.
• Buitelaar 2003- dopamine antagonists (reduce dopamine activity in the brain) has been successfully used to reduce aggressive behaviour in violent delinquents.
• Couppis et al 2008- dopamine production plays a reinforcing role in aggression, people carry out aggressive acts in order to increase their dopamine levels like the way stimuli like food, sex and recreational drugs do.

Evaluation:

• Ferrari et al 2003- rats allowed fighting at same time every day for 10 days, on 11^th day not allowed to fight but in anticipation of imminent fight lead to increased dopamine levels, experience has changed the brain chemistry consistent with the onset of aggressive behaviour.
• Couppis et al 2008 – lack of dopamine leads to not being able to move due to dopamine’s role in coordination of movement so it is difficult to explain any drop in aggressive behaviour as if could be due to lack of motivation to be aggressive or  difficulty moving hence difficulty in responding aggressively.

What is the role of testosterone in causing aggression? – evaluate studies

• Males produce testosterone in the testes, women produce less by converting dehydropiandrosterone (DHEA) in adrenal glands.
• Testosterone marks aggressive behaviour more likely to be expressed.
• Archer 1991- meta analysis of 5 studies  found low positive correlation between aggression and correlation
• Book et al 2001- meta analysis of 45 studies found correlations of 0.14
• Olweus et al 1980, 1988- very slight increase of testosterone in institutionalized delinquent boys than that of non-delinquent male students.
• Kouri et al 1995- gave men either dose of testosterone or placebo. Told pushing a button reduces the amount of money given to another person and told somebody was doing the same to them. Those with the extra testosterone pushed the button more times.
• Pope et al 2000- carried out same experiment as Kouri et al but gave the testosterone of a six week period, and also found the same results.
• Bone et al 2006- testosterone is more often to linked to dominance, which can sometimes lead to aggression, the testosterone itself doesn’t lead straight to aggression.

Evaluation

• Bain et al 1987- found no difference between testosterone levels between men who had been charged with violent crimes and men who had been charged with non-violent crimes.
• Kreuz and Rose 1972- no different between 21 young prisoners who had been classified as fighting or non-fighting while in prison. However 10 with histories of violent crime in adolescence had higher levels of testosterone than those without violent histories.
• Zitzmann 2006 – only really relevant to strength athletes who supplement excessively high levels. In most cases testosterone is positive, a lack of testosterone can lead to depressive disorders.
• Barrett-Connor et al 1999 –found depression levels increase with age due to decreasing levels of testosterone.
• McNicholas et al 2003- increase in positivity corresponds with testosterone replacement therapy.

What is the role of cortisol in causing aggression? – evaluate studies

• Van Goozen et al 2007- cortisol is part of the body’s reaction to stress. Lower levels of cortisol are associated with high levels of aggressive behaviour.
• Virkkunen 1985- low levels of cortisol in habitually violent offenders.
• Tennes and Kreye 1985- low levels of cortisol in aggressive school children.
• Having low ANS arousal (and therefore low leves of cortisol) is unpleasant so aggressive behaviour is an attempt to cause raise and raise these levels.
• Cortisol plays a mediating role by inhibiting the likelihood of aggressive behaviour.
• Popma et al 2006- interaction between cortisol and testosterone in relation to over aggression. Positive relationship between testosterone and overt aggression in participants with low cortisol levels.

Evaluation

• Gerra et al 1997- lack of consistency in results of studies. Reported higher cortisol concentrations in aggressive participants.

The treatment of aggression using arts therapies in forensic psychiatry: Results of a qualitative inquiry,  The Arts in Psychotherapy, Volume 33, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 37-58

Henk Smeijsters Ph.D,  Gorry Cleven RDT

Abstract:

The article describes the body of knowledge of arts  therapies in forensic psychiatry based on recent practice, theory and research. The first part gives an overview of observational details, interventions, effects and rationales of drama therapy, music therapy, art therapy and dance-movement therapy in general and more specifically in the Netherlands. It shows that arts therapies can help to decrease recidivism. In the second part the results are presented of a qualitative naturalistic inquiry with 31 experienced arts therapists working in 12 institutions in the Netherlands and Germany. The arts therapists have been involved by means of semi-structured questionnaires, interviews and focus groups. Their implicit knowledge about indications, goals, interventions, effects and rationales have been compared and integrated into consensus-based treatment methods. The research reflects the Dutch tradition where all arts therapies are developed and researched within the same methodological formats. The results of one of the problem areas that have been researched, destructive aggression, are presented. Finally a comparison has been made between all arts therapies for the treatment of destructive aggression.

Lancashire Care staff can request the full-text of this paper, email: susan.jennings@lancashirecare.nhs.uk