A bit about my A Level studies

• Psychology is my favourite lesson, as expected!
• I also study Biology. This teaches me important scientific principles, both theoretically and practically. I find it challenging and immensely interesting. 
• English Language has made me a fluent writer and logical thinker. I enjoy finding connections between my study of English/Linguistics and Psychology
• Photography AS allowed me to be creative and has aided my developmental, research, planning and communication skills.
• Studying Business Studies AS for a while also helped develop already mentioned skills, while enhancing my awareness of the professional world around me.

I like to think of myself as a charitable person

• For my 10^th birthday, instead of gifts at my party, I asked for donations and raised over £70 for the animal charity PDSA!
• I have completed many sponsored events, including a day-long silence!
• I am a blood donor (giving blood for the first time was one of the best experiences of my life)
• I have an organ donor card, because why not!
• Also, I have been trained in basic first aid, which hopefully I'll never have to use

"Advanced people watching"

I can't remember where I heard Psychology described in this way, but I really like that concept. I've always loved people watching and being able to study it in a scientific way seems so excellent!

Why Do We Laugh?

Laughter has always fascinated me. Why do we laugh? Why did evolution come up with mechanism? I understand that crying has an evolutionary purpose (with infants showing distress etc.) but what purpose does laughing have? Its a topic I'd like to find out more about.
In a recent episode of Radio 4's 'The Life Scientific', neuroscientist Sophie Scott talks about her research and use of brain imaging techniques and explains that laughter is a very important social tool. The way in which laughter is used for humans to interact with each other answers some of my questions. Laughter is the only emotion to be cross-culturally recognised. And laughter is not exclusive to humans; studies have found that even rats laugh!
Studies have found that when hearing someone laughing, the brain appears to join-in. The mirroring system in the brain is activated when hearing laughter. We are behaviourally primed to join in with laughter, and it is encouraged, developmentally, in children. Studies also show that people are able to detect 'real' laughter and 'fake' posed laughter. These two types are under different brain controls i.e. controlled and automatic/uncontrolled.
This is definitely a subject I would like to do further research on in the future.

♡ Psychology ♡

I wrote this to go in my personal statement and, although I had to edit it out, I really liked it so:

I look forward to my Psychology lessons and when I get my new textbooks or workbooks I can’t help but flick through them like an inquisitive child reading the last page of their story book. I am often tiring my friends with details of Freudian Psychology lessons, sitting on the bus telling them all I have learnt about phobias, spouting facts about schizophrenics and repeating controversial experiments such as Milgram, Little Albert and Stanford Prison to anyone who will listen.

Cambridge 'Personal Styles' Report

A while ago, I completed a questionnaire in order to get a 'Personal Styles Report' and to contribute to psychological research. This has been devised by Cambridge and was a really good thing to be involved in.

According to the report, I have an ‘industrious study style’ i.e. a capacity to focus and persist and I demonstrate a ‘self-managing study style’ i.e. I am good at organising, planning, setting goals, prioritising, and I take a methodical approach. I am also motivated by achievement and set high standards for myself.

As well as detailing my strengths it also gave me some useful advise on how to improve.

Yale Lecture - 'What Motivates Us: Sex'

I watched this lecture on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCNgknc7Qv8 and like a good student I took some notes. What better place to write up these notes than on my Psychology blog?

• Biological/Darwinian approaches argue that sex is for reproductive purposes. Does this mean other forms of sex e.g. homosexual, with contraception, are unnatural or wrong? This would be a very close-minded view, in my opinion.
• "Genetic does not mean inevitable, cultural does not mean easy to fix". I found this an interesting quote. The examples used were: genes determine bad eyesight but it is not inevitable that the individual must suffer from poor eyesight throughout their lives, due to glasses and contact lenses being invented. Whereas, opinion on obesity is cultural and, although these opinions vary between cultures, they are nearly impossible to change. 
• Female sex cells are bigger than males' however, males of most species are physically bigger and more aggressive - what is the reason for this? This is answered by Parental Investment theory. In most species, females have higher investment in the offspring. Whereas males compete for mates, females can easily find one so competition is less (although they do compete for the best mates). This explains why males are larger; they need to adapt to get the females' attention, while females can afford to be more 'choosy' so do not need such adaptions. In short: differences in sizes of sex cells lead to differences in parental investment, which explains how differences in psychological and physiological mechanisms evolved between males and females. The size or aggressiveness of a species can be predicted when level of parental investment is known. For example, in penguins the parental investment is equal, and sizes of males and females are also equal, in reflection of this.
• Mostly, humans are polygamists i.e. they have more than one sexual partner throughout their lives. Evolutionary, the fact that human males are bigger suggests competition and gives an indication of levels of Parental Investment in humans. On average, human males are more aggressive and violent than females, which can be explained by levels of testosterone. 
• Parental investment theory suggests males are more receptive to anonymous sex, whereas females are more 'picky' (bearing in mind these differences evolved before birth control). Due to the fact that males do not have to invest so much into offspring, they do not 'care' as much about their mate as females do and they more readily compete for whatever sex they can get.
• Prostitution is a near universal interest for males, which supports the above point. As does the fact that porn is universal for males (even monkeys have a form of porn!)
• Questionnaires showed that whilst women, on average, want less than 1 sexual partner in the next month, 1 in the next two years and 4-5 over their lifetime, men want 2, 8, then 18 respectively. Experiments have shown that when attractive actors approached strangers to ask them to 'go to bed' with them, no women agreed but 75% of men did! 
• It has been found that female homosexuals are more monogamous than male homosexuals. In theory, what gay men do, in terms of frequency and nature of sexual habits, is what heterosexuals would do if they had females who are as willing as them. This shows the differences in sexual 'choosiness' in human males and females.

Sexual Attractiveness/Mate preference:

• Cross cultural studies show that everyone values kindness and intelligence in potential partners.
• Females focus more on power and status and the male's interests in being a good father. Evolutionary, this makes sense; a male with these qualities will be able to protect the female and help her to raise the young.
• Males focus more on a female's ability to have children, therefore they care more age.
• Everyone likes physical beauty. This can be explained by the fact that beauty, e.g. large eyes, big lips, smooth skin, signals youth. Beauty also signals health e.g. absence of deformity, clear eyes, good skin and teeth. 
• If a lot of faces are morphed together, the result is a 'beautiful', and very average, face. It has been found that even babies prefer average faces, suggesting that a preference towards normality is hardwired rather than cultural. For those of us who aren't considered particularly attractive, this is quite a pleasant fact. Beautiful people are very average - how boring! 
• Males and females are treated differently by society i.e. there are different expectations of behaviour.
• Developmentally, gender self segregation from the ages of around 4-11, exaggerates and enhances these gender differences. 

Homosexuality

• Around 98% of women are sexually attracted to men and around 96% of men are sexually attracted to women. Why the differences?
• It has been both scientifically and logically proved that people do not choose their sexual orientation (I still get angry thinking about the ignorant guy in my Psychology class last year who was adamant that 'gays choose to be gay')
• There is reason to believe that gay and straight people are different long before puberty with regard to childhood fantasies and desires. 
• It is believed that there is a sort of genetic predisposition towards homosexuality. However, twin studies show 50% congruence in identical twins and although this is high odds, it would be 100% if homosexuality was entirely genetic. 
• It is somewhat an evolutionary mystery as to why some men do not want sex with women and vice verse. It would make sense that these genes would be eliminated by evolution since they do not lead to offspring. However, these genes remain, why is this?

EPQ - initial ideas

I'm really enthusiastic about starting my EPQ (Extended Project Qualification).
After getting over the disappointment in not being able to investigate mental disorders (since it cannot cross over with anything from my lessons and we study many of the disorders in Psychology), I have decided to base it on dreams.
Dreams have always fascinated me and I am really looking forward to discovering more about them.
Today, I produced a mind-map on the subject of dreams and I am really happy with it. It turns out I can be creative sometimes!

Should schizophrenics be forced to have treatment?

Just a short post really, I may add to this at a later date because I think its an interesting topic.
It was a question raised in my psychology class when we were learning about schizophrenia drug therapy and I thought it was very thought-provoking.
What if an individual wants to refuse treatment? If they choose the voices in their head that is telling them they are god (if, say, they had delusions of grandeur and religious auditory hallucinations) over the horrific side effects that make them feel like the walking dead, is that okay? 
Although this promotes choice, it also could be very dangerous. Take, for example, the case of British paranoid schizophrenic Nicola Edgington who killed her mother in 2005, then went on to attack two strangers in 2011, after being released from treatment in 2009. Cases like this suggest that treating schizophrenics is in the public's best interest and serves as a protective measure. 
It is also worth mentioning that it seems like a social norm that schizophrenics should be treated for their disorder. There are schools of thought nowadays that argue that people with mental disorder should not be treated differently and 'who are doctors to say that someone is not normal?' Just because someone acts differently and deviates from a social norm, does this mean they are 'mad' or their behaviour is 'wrong'? There seems to be many sides to this story.

Fears

Psychology (and science in general) has changed me in many ways. 

If you were to ask me a year ago what I was afraid of I'd probably say the Paranormal - ghosts, demons etc. ect. However today these things simply do not bother me. Yeah, I'll get a bit freaked out watching Paranormal Activity or in bed in the dark when my thoughts are running away with me, but I have much greater fears. And these fears are based entirely on reality.

The thing that scares me the most nowadays are humans. The capabilities of the human mind, the unknowns of human behaviour, the capacity of humans for evil. I think of serial killers, psychopaths, neurological disease, mental illness, events such as the holocaust, torture and even the simple, often unintentional, ability of humans to ruin each other with emotions, and it terrifies me. This stuff is real. For every scary story, there's a person behind it who had the mental capacity to come up with such a horror, and to me, that is far more disturbing.

New Scientist Articles

Recently, I've read a few interesting articles in the New Scientist magazines so I thought I'd share their content here.

Beyond Nature & Nurture - article from New Scientist (31st August 2013)
This article is about twins where one has an abnormality. In this case, their nature and their nurture has been the same, so what makes them different? Why does one twin develop the disease and the other does not? If identical twins (with the same genes) are more similar in regard to a particular trait than non-identical twins (with different genes) then the trait is down to genes and if this is reversed then the trait is down to environment. Could a life be lived exactly the same but have different outcomes (despite the nature and the nurture being the same)? The environment plays a key role in shaping epigenetic profiles, which in turn influences the activity of our genes, which in turn may shape our behaviour, lifestyle choices and health. Epigenetics are seen as a mediator between genes and the environment. "There is more to our uniqueness than genes and upbringing: even clones will all end up different". Is the nature/nurture debate outdated? Is there a third factor to it? Many aspects of bodies and behaviours are a result of complex interactions between genes and environment, mediated by epigenetics and chance.

Rethinking Depression, Rebuilding Broken Brains - article from New Scientist (27th July 2013)

This article is about revolutionary treatments for chronic, treatment-resistant, depression. This sort of depression is a real problem; it is estimated that there is one suicide every second and the WHO's assessment suggests that depression is the leading cause of disability in the world. The dominant theory is that depression is a result of neurochemical (in particular serotonin) imbalance. Based on the serotonin hypothesis, Prozac and other antidepressants were developed in the 1980's, however, in recent times these drugs have become less effective. A high percentage of studies showed the drugs as only slightly better than a placebo. A quote from a therapist talking of her patient: "it wasn't that she wanted to die, she simply didn't care if she lived or not". Recently, there has been ground-breaking therapy called Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) which has been found effective against treatment resistant depression. A drug called ketamine has also been found to be effective against this form of depression. Glutamate (a neurochemical found to play a key role in learning, motivation etc.) has been found to be too low in the brains of those with depression. By taking ketamine, glutamate is increased and neurons in the brain actually have been found to make permanent repairs! "Glutamate may be teaching a depressed brain how to rebuild itself". 

Art In The Asylum

Today, while attending the University of Nottingham Open Day (which I really enjoyed) I visited the Art In The Asylum exhibition. 
Looking at the art work of mentally ill patients was fascinating. It gives an insight into their minds in a way that no other medium can - through visual and symbolic representations you can really get a sense of their mental states and their raw emotions. At times the art was disturbing or unsettling and at times it was beautiful and had no clues of the artists' distress.
This exhibition is very good, probably the best I've been to, and I highly recommend visiting if you get the chance. There is so much to see and the art is accompanied by information about the artists' lives and stories. 
Also, I enjoyed the real brain on display. It is mind-blowing how such a small organ controls the essential 'being' of a human.There is a real pure beauty in a human brain. 

Meeting with a Counsellor

I had a meeting with a counsellor at college today to talk about their job, since I am investigating psychology related careers.
Counselling is a form of psychotherapy - it is not about labelling or diagnosis, rather about the person's inner experience. Different counsellors work by different theories/techniques. This includes humanistic, person centered therapy which involves empowerment and breaking down 'life scripts' in order to see situations differently. It can often be a slow process but can be very effective since it places the person in control. This is the technique the counsellor I talked to uses and is trained in. She told me that it involves 3 main concepts; empathy, congruence/being open and honest, and positive regard/acceptance i.e. being non judgmental. These basic principles are applied to every person - the way of working is standard but is applied to the situation so can seem changeable.
Other theories/techniques in counselling include CBT (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy) which involves thinking and behaving differently, rather than finding out the cause of what is wrong with the person, and more 'aggressive' theories such as psychoanalysis. Different counsellors will train in different theories, depending on their own personal views.
At the beginning of the academic year a counsellor at a college will aim to make themselves visible and known, putting a face to their service, in order to make it more 'human'. They will accept referrals of students, whether they are from the students themselves, teachers, parents etc. An initial meeting will be held in which background information and the format of counselling is discussed and it is decided whether the counselling will go ahead. If it is to go ahead, initially the person will have 6 sessions, then another 6 if necessary. In some circumstances, a further 6 will be held. There are four counsellors in the team here.
A lot of counsellors go in to the job as a 'wounded healer' i.e. they have had personal issues and been through similar processes themselves. The training is intense, involving a degree and masters in the area of counselling that they wish to be trained in. Most people enter counselling later in life, often as a result of their own experiences.
When asked what the best thing about the job is, the response was: being with people and seeing that you're making a difference to them. Sharing someone's life is honoring and a real buzz. The job is extremely rewarding.
And the worst thing: personal gremlins, questions such as 'am I doing the right thing?' and wanting the best for someone where this may not happen i.e. if they do not want to complete the counselling. Also the wages do not reflect the qualifications needed and the responsibility held - real passion is needed because the pay is not brilliant.
Personality traits/skills/qualities needed to be a successful counsellor: naturally a people person, good listener, empathetic (this can't be trained, it needs to be natural), passionate, willing and open about self (own strengths/weaknesses), and must know self well.
Advice for anyone wanting to get into the profession: Just go for it!

Meet my new best friend!

Personality Disorders Training

Today I went to a training session on personality disorders with the drug and alcohol rehab charity that I volunteer for.
The DSM-IV describes a personality disorder as 'an enduring pattern of inner experience and behaviour that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual's culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an onset in adolescence or early adulthood, is stable over time, and leads to distress or impairment'. Although this definition is clear in describing a personality disorder it is very 'wordy' and to a sufferer to receive such a diagnosis may be very daunting. 'A diagnosis is only as useful as the support that comes with it'. 
There are three clusters of personality disorders:

• Cluster A - Odd/Eccentric including Paranoid, Schizoid and Schizotypal personality disorders. An individual may be emotionally and socially withdrawn, suspicious and difficult to engage
• Cluster B - Dramatic/Erratic including Borderline, Anti-Social, Histrionic and Narcissistic personality disorders. An individual may be emotionally labile and chaotic, have frequent contact with services, lack of empathy and poor impulse control
• Cluster C - Anxious/Fearful including Avoidant, Dependent and Obsessive-compulsive personality disorders. An individual may be perfectionist, over-reliant, passive or fearful of rejection. 

I then learnt more in detail about these types of disorders and made many links with my previous knowledge (which I won't detail here but feel free to ask me about it). When reading about the traits of each personality disorder it is simple to identify some of your own personality traits. However, the difference between having traits of personality disorders and actually having the personality disorder is that a PD is persistent, pervasive (affects all of life) and problematic. Note: obsessive compulsive personality disorder is different from OCD.

There are many challenges associated with a personality disorder diagnosis, including likelihood of  experiencing adverse life effects e.g. childhood trauma, vulnerability to other psychiatric conditions e.g. depression, high prevalence of PD in the prison population, specialist areas evoke varied and sometimes conflicting professional responses, need for persistence despite set backs and that professionals may feel unskilled and ineffectual. 

We also discussed the nature/nurture debate in terms of personality disorders. It appears that the jury is out on the true cause, however, although a lot of personality disorders are associated with experience (for example, childhood abuse/neglect) it is suggested that some people have a genetic predisposition. Why doesn't every person abused as a child develop a personality disorder and why do those with no adverse experiences develop them?

In order for someone with a personality disorder to be referred and accepted to a service they must meet criteria such as 'risk of harm to self or others' or 'burden/distress on family and agencies'. But this means that many people who need help but aren't 'a nuisance' do not receive it and it leads to sufferers exaggerating their behaviours in order to receive support. 

Treatment for PD is less medical and more psychologically based i.e. less drugs are given and more therapy is used. CBT can be used along with other methods. One method is Dialectical Behavioural Therapy (DBT) which was developed specifically for individuals with Borderline PD who self-harmed. It is a combination of behavioural therapy and Zen philosophy and aims to help people learn how to tolerate feelings and 'work with' what they experience in a more positive way. "Accepting life as it is, not as it should be - and accepting the need for change despite that reality and because of it". 

"I hate you, don't ever leave me" was a very interesting quote from a video we watched; I think it details what its like in the mind of someone suffering conflict as a result of a personality disorder very well. 

During the training we also did some work on boundary management and recovery in the context of working with those with PD. Personally, I'm yet to experience working with a sufferer but I now feel better informed if I was faced with such a challenge. 

In the work I'm doing, boundaries are very important. "Boundaries are guidelines, rules or limits that a person creates to identify for themselves what are reasonable, safe and permissible ways for other people to behave around them and how they will respond when someone steps outside those limits". People with PD may "struggle to set limits about what they might do and therefore do risky, damaging or dangerous things, but equally they find it difficult to accept other people setting limits in relationships". I found the Boundary Seesaw Model (Hamilton, 2009) very interesting. 

Finally I wanted to share this quote about recovery: "not a sprint, but a long-distance race". 

I really got a lot out of this training and I appreciate being able to attend such events. 

The Research Digest Guide to Studying

http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/the-digest-guide-to-studying.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+BpsResearchDigest+(BPS+Research+Digest)

This is so helpful! (the psychology behind effective studying)

These are also great:
http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/the-digest-guide-to-willpower.html
http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/the-digest-guide-to-influencing-people.html
http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/the-digest-guide-to-dating.html

Voluntary Work

In 1999 research carried out by Clary and Snyder suggested that there are six reasons why individuals volunteer:

• to express personal values (humanitarianism)
• to understand and learn more about the phenomenon or issue
• to enhance one’s self-development and personal growth
• to gain career-related experience
• to strengthen social relationships (community)
• to address personal problems or circumstances such as guilt or escape. 

For me, the second, third, forth and fifth reasons are the most important and the main motives behind my voluntary work at a rehabilitation unit for drug and alcohol users.

"We prefer the certainty of misery rather than the misery of uncertainty"

"Omg you are SUCH an attention seeker"

You know what, I find it quite hypocritical when people say they don't like attention seekers. I believe we are all attention seekers, I believe it is human nature: humans seek the attention of others. Whether this is conscious or unconscious, negative or positive, in one form or another the majority of people will do it. It can be as simple as posting an achievement on your Facebook status to as extreme as faking someone's death but the fact is, everyone wants recognition and everyone wants people to take notice of them. We are all guilty of wanting attention at some point, including me.