The Truth about OCD: A Real-Life Example

I am thankful for all of the organizations and people who have worked to make the public aware of mental illness and convince them that is nothing to joke around about.  At the same time, I constantly encounter people, including friends, who joke about their "OCD" acting up - when they see something out of place, when a line painted on the road is crooked, when a pencil is upside down, whatever.

What a coincidence - my annoyed psychologist senses are tingling

As a response to these jokes and comments, allow me to present something that just happened to me.  I went out to my car to run a quick errand, and saw one of my neighbors outside cleaning off her car that was parked next to mine.  She said hello and kept brushing.  I've seen her before and strongly suspect she has OCD (Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder), but will admit I don't know that for sure.  She always seems very sedate when I talk to her, so she is probably on some pretty heavy anti-anxiety meds to help control the condition (or she has something else I'm not aware of and can't detect because she's so heavily medicated).

She walked around her car once, continuing to brush as I started my car and got my brush out.  And when I say she was brushing the snow off her car, I mean she was brushing each and every flake off of her car, off of the windows, the sides, the tires, the headlights.  Her car was clean - far cleaner than mine was even after I finished brushing.  The wind picked up and blew some of the snow from my car onto hers.  I apologized, and she smiled and kept brushing, each new flake that flew onto her car being immediately brushed off.  And as new snow started to fall, she continued walking around her car, brushing.  

I don't know how long she had been out there before I came outside, or how long she was there after I left.  But my heart went out to this poor lady, who could not stop brushing her car until every single flake was gone.  I look out the window and see that it is snowing now, and I think of what a futile task it is to want - no, need - every single flake of snow off of the car.

Desiring order in all things, being really bristled when something is not perfect - that's not the same thing as what this woman experiences, where desiring order, obsessing over each little detail, keeps her from being able to move forward; where her compulsion for things to be perfect keeps her from being able to complete a simple task like cleaning off her car.

I'll resist the urge to go on.  And for my friends out there who make comments about their OCD, I will only say - if you really truly think that your need for order and perfection constitutes a mental illness, please get help.  But if you are just using this diagnosis as a joke, or a "prettier" way of referring to your anal retentive nature, think about this woman, and how every single flake on her car needs to be gone before she can get in and drive away.

Thoughtfully yours,

~Sara

Digital Recreation: Practical Movie-Making or Grave-Robbing?

It's been less than a week since Philip Seymour Hoffman was found dead in his apartment.  Like many people, I was in shock over the news.  Not only was he one of my favorite actors - and my frequent example of incredibly versatile actors who could take on pretty much any role - I was only vaguely aware of his drug problem.  I heard the news through a story posted by a friend on Facebook, and had to Google and check multiple news sites before I believed it wasn't a hoax.

I thought over some of my favorite movies in which he appeared, and had the urge to watch them, but thought that would be kind of morbid.  I also remembered seeing him in the latest Hunger Games movie and absent-mindedly thought, "Hmm, I wonder what they'll do about his character."

And then today I found out.  Hoffman had finished filming Mockingjay Part I, and had only a week left of filming on Mockingjay Part II.  To complete the one major scene Hoffman had left, the film-makers will use digital effects to recreate Hoffman.

The more I thought about this, the more I thought, "Wow, apparently Hollywood gets to decide when you're actually dead or not."  I was reminded of the Ed Wood film, Plan 9 from Outer Space, regarded as one of the worst movies ever made.  The movie starred Bela Lugosi, a man known for his portrayal of Dracula.  Lugosi and Wood became friends, and Lugosi appeared in many of Wood's movies.  When Lugosi died during filming of Plan 9, due to complications from methadone and morphine addiction, Wood was devasted… but also had a movie to finish.  They found a man (his wife's chiropractor) who looked like Lugosi from the eyes up, and had him cover his face with a cape for his scenes as the reanimated Lugosi (reanimated both in the sense of the character - who died and was brought back by aliens - and reanimated in the same sense Hoffman will be).

True, Hoffman's digital recreation for Mockingjay Part II will only be for one scene (or so the film-makers say), while Lugosi's double appeared in a large chunk of the movie.  So we may only be talking about 10 or so minutes.  And this certainly wouldn't be the first time a movie was released after one of its actors had died.  But where do we draw the line?  Now that computer effects have gotten so good that this kind of recreation is possible - and probably won't even be noticeable to the viewer - is this something we will see more of in the future?  Where do we say, "Okay, that amount of digital recreation is acceptable" and where do we say, "That's going to far"?

As always, please share your thoughts in the comments below!

Thoughtfully yours,
~Sara

Trivial Only Post: Last Night's Dinner Entertainment - the Mutant Fruit Fly

My husband and I went to one of our favorite local beer gardens for dinner.  Everything was excellent - except for this one fruit fly buzzing around our heads as we ate and drank.  We cracked jokes about it (I'd ordered a lambic beer - so I joked that my fruit beer came with a fruit fly), tried to kill it several times, and eventually gave up on it until my husband looked down and noticed that it had fallen into his beer.

Certain the fruit fly was dead, we looked closer only to see that it was swimming - kicking its legs and seemingly quite alive.  My husband fished the fruit fly out with his fork and set it on his napkin, saying, "You're welcome."  Of course, we were certain it wouldn't be alive much longer.

We were wrong.  Slowly, it straightened out its wings, walking along the napkin, shaking its legs.  We watched this for a couple of minutes, and snapped a picture.

Almost good as new - but will he ever be able to fly again?

It hung around for several minutes, walking around a little square of my husband's napkin, and didn't move when I got in close to take the above picture.  Finally, my husband reached over to grab his phone, and it took off.

In fact, it flew back and landed on my beer bottle and crawled inside (it was empty).  I decided not to bother him.

What is Science?

I can see from my previous blog post that I haven't posted in a few months.  I've been thinking many deeply trivial thoughts but just haven't had the time to sit down and organize them coherently.  But a couple of recent conversations prompted me to sit down and write once again.

One conversation dealt with the definition of science.  A commenter argued that "science was bogus" because the findings are always changing and contradicting what was found previously; I decided to deprive the trolls of food and not respond.  Another dealt with religious extremists.  I actually got involved in this conversation and argued that religion fulfills a basic human need of explaining our world.

In fact, a variety of human enterprises are meant to explain our world and help us understand and navigate the many environments and situations in which we find ourselves.  When we make many observations systematically, we call it science.  However, finding patterns does not help us to truly understand what is occurring, so we need to apply an explanation for the pattern we observed (without going into the true meanings of various words with regard to this concept, we will simply call this "theory").  This is where things get tricky.

The way we explain the pattern we observed is highly influenced (I even go so far as to say "biased) by our current knowledge.  When we observed that certain metals "stick" to other metals, we recognize that pattern.  However, the way we explain that observation is influenced by our level of knowledge and observations about other things.  In the past, we might have referred to this phenomena using magical or supernatural explanations.  Today, we recognize that magnetism occurs because electromagnetic fields are generated from the behavior of our planet's core.  What we know about our planet (from other scientific endeavors) has helped us to understand another pattern in a nice, well-rounded theory.

The point I'm trying to make is the explanation for and labeling of these patterns is not in and of itself science.  But it is a necessary part of human discovery that we give a pattern a label and explanation to help us wrap our head around it, and make it fit into our understanding of the world.  A bunch of disparate patterns from research is only useful when we can tie it back to something we already know.  In addition, this is why scientific findings are constantly changing, and a theory that was long believed to be true is found to be incorrect.  The theory is not science, but an essential adjunct to science and a way to tie multiple scientific findings together.  We couldn't truly understand and explain magnetism until we had the knowledge of our planet.  This means that, in the future, when we learn even more, our explanation may change drastically.

The types of things we can observe is also constantly in flux.  Psychologists in the early 20th century were more drawn toward behaviorism and downplayed the activities occurring within our brain mainly because we couldn't observe the brain directly, at least not in a living, normal functioning state.  We could only measure the outward behaviors of people and animals.  Today, we can examine the brain directly, which has led to some amazing discoveries, the most recent of which is that dogs can experience very similar emotions as humans, such as happiness and love.  Who knows what we will find in the future?  Perhaps we will discover that other species are more similar to us than we realize, which will have interesting ramifications for things like animal research.

Science is a useful way to understand our world.  And it is one of the many ways we discover knowledge about ourselves and our way of life.  But the explanation portion is more difficult to label as "science" or something else, because of limitations in our knowledge and biases that color our worldview.  We laugh now at "scientific" explanations from hundreds of years ago, but often fail to recognize how puny our current knowledge is compared to where we may be in the future.  Hundreds of years from now, this time in human history may be viewed as the "dark ages."

Scientifically yours,
~Sara

Attempting to Define the Elusive Quality of Stage Presence

I've spent many years in theatre - in fact, it was my original career path when I started college, though I switched to psychology early on and haven't really looked back. I still try to perform when I get the chance, in my choir, at karaoke night, and by singing at church. Tonight, I cantored a mass at our local Catholic church, where I have been part of the music ministry for a while, and was complimented by the accompanist, not only on my singing, but on my stage presence. I've had many friends compliment me on my presence in recent years, which I find somewhat funny.

Why do I find it funny? In high school, when theatre was my life, my theatre teacher told me repeatedly that I needed to work on my stage presence. Not really having a clear picture of what that was and how to get it, I tried to exude some quality during my acting. I had no clue what I was doing. Seriously. No. Clue.

So she recommended I try taking dance classes. At 17 years old, I took my very first dance class. Tap. I loved it. It was rhythmic. It was fun. I didn't have to be graceful - that is a quality I seriously lack - and I caught on quickly. My teacher told me what I joy I was to teach because I just got it. With my hubris and belief in untapped dance ability, I decided to add jazz and ballet. Ballet, I was just okay. Jazz, I was horrible. Should have just stuck with tap.

But somewhere along the way, I got it. I got the stage presence. And I've had people telling me how wonderful my presence is ever since. I wish I could nail down what it is I'm doing now that I wasn't doing as a freshmen and sophomore theatre geek. I think that's why psychological research appealed to me - I don't do well with vague, undefined concepts. I like to be able to understand the nuts and bolts of a concept, so that I can explain it to others. In research, we call these "operational definitions" - and see a previous blog post about the concept.

So I started thinking about what stage presence is, in an effort to teach others how they can get it too. Here's what I've got so far. Feel free to add anything in the comments.

Of course, there are apparently many workshops that purport to teach you stage presence. I'm giving these tips away for free, mostly because I'm not sure if they're actually good tips. You've been warned! :)

1. Posture: It sounds silly to tell people to make sure they have good posture, but it's true. Standing up straight really does make a difference. It makes you seem taller, and, as a short person, I know I don't take up much space, so this by itself does a lot. You'd be surprised how many people have bad posture. I've watched many actors (even big-name actors) with their upper body leaned slightly forward, and it makes them look like they're uncomfortable and out of place.

2. Even when you're not doing something, do something: There's a singer (who shall remain nameless) who is really involved when she sings. But only when she sings. When the accompaniment continues between verses, she does nothing. She looks like she's waiting for a bus. I'm not saying you should flail your arms around, or do jumping jacks, or something. But don't look like you're just waiting for the music. Smile. Look like you're thinking about something wonderful (or terrible, if you're singing a sad song). If you're singing with another person, engage with them. Whatever you do, it should make sense with the song. But don't look like you're waiting for a bus - unless you're singing about waiting for a bus.

3. Engage someone, whoever makes sense: If you're performing at a recital or church, look at your audience. It's okay to look at your music, but don't just stare at it. If you're in a play, where it doesn't make sense to notice an audience of people sitting there (i.e., the fourth wall), engage with other people on the stage. If you're alone, take in your surroundings. Once again, do what makes sense with the song, but you're doing more than just singing. You're a character, even in a recital or a church. So figure out what your character would be thinking or doing or wanting to look at, and do that.

4. Pretend that whatever you're doing is right, even if it's wrong: I sing wrong words more than I'd like to admit. I mess up notes. I miss pick-ups. We all do it. Don't cringe when you notice your mistake. Just go with it. This is probably the biggest mistake made by good, but amateur, musicians. You're good enough to know when you've messed up (which sets you apart from the not-so-good amateur musicians), but not yet confident enough to hide it well. Of course, keep practicing. Work to minimize your mistakes. But also work to suppress reactions to those mistakes. If you can master that, most people won't even notice when you screw up.

5. Related to #4, always look like you know what you're doing, even when you don't: Once again, this takes practice. Walk with purpose, even if you think you're going the wrong way. Speak as if your words are gospel, even if you know in the back of your mind that they're the wrong words. Don't look lost - unless that's your character. But whatever you're doing, do it 100% and most people will think that's exactly what you should do.

6. If all else fails, try tap-dancing: I'm not sure if it actually worked, but hey, it was fun. And that's always something. :)

Presently yours,
~Sara

Marriage, Anniversaries, and the Striking Down of DOMA

Today is a very special day. Today I celebrate my third anniversary of marriage. Today is also the day that the Supreme Court ruled the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. I feel very privileged to share my anniversary with a day that I hope signals massive change in how we view the construct of marriage.

In the distant past, a wedding was a luxury generally afforded to the wealthy. Common law marriages were established so that the poor could still be considered married, even if they could not afford to go through the ritual of marriage. Even in more recent centuries, when the United States was expanding Westward, many towns did not have a church, and so couples would move in together and start their families, and have the wedding when a circuit rider (a pastor, usually of a Protestant denomination, who rode around preaching to the settlements) came around and could perform the ceremony - sometimes months or years later.

Today, weddings are still an expensive undertaking, but there are many options for people. Small wedding chapels, justice of the peace ceremonies - hell, you can even have Elvis marry you in Vegas, something I half-jokingly referenced multiple times while my fiance and I complained about wedding planning and its costs. A wedding, and marriage, is no longer a luxury of the very wealthy.

Instead, it is the luxury of the straight. It has been used as a new form of division,  this time not between the wealthy and the poor, but between the heterosexual and the homosexual. Say what you will about the religious underpinnings of the concept of marriage - the way we think of marriage today is as a contract between two willing parties. Two people who wish to be bound together in some way, whether that be under God, under the State, or all of the above. Even among people who generally think of marriage in the same way (say, as a contract under God), the definition of marriage will still vary widely. I'm sure my idea of marriage differs very much from others who share my faith and religious practice. It's a very personal concept and decision.

So even in the face of all that variability - as well as all the variability in opinions on gender roles (don't even get me started on that one - this blog post would be way too long) - why do so many people still insist that marriage is only to occur between a man and a woman? And further, why is there this belief that allowing a man to marry another man, or a woman to marry another woman, will somehow change the definition and meaning of a given couple's marriage? Like I said, the definition and meaning is a very personal thing. And nothing anyone else does can alter it.

I'm happy that I was able to marry my husband. And I'm happy that others, who have been denied this privilege in the past, will hopefully soon be able to share this institution.

Thoughtfully yours,
~Sara

Willpower, Self-Regulation, and One NYU Professor's War on "Fatties"

You've locked yourself in your apartment, finally beginning to tackle the thing grad students dread, the stuff of nightmares, the fodder for PhD comics, the event grad schools create support groups about: your dissertation. But, gosh, that leftover piece of chocolate cake looks so tasty. Well, it will only take a minute to eat. At least, that's how I eat chocolate cake.

Okay, now that that's gone, time to get back to this dissertation thingy. Oh, but I have chips. And cheese. Nachos? Brilliant.

What was I doing? Oh yeah, dissertation. Oh, but I'm still hungry. Better get some food. Can't work hungry. Before you know it, the dissertation is but a foggy memory in your food binge coma.

Sound ridiculous? Not to this NYU professor:

You know, this tweet seemed fishy, until he hash-tagged it truth. Now it's indisputable.

I know what you're thinking. "Really, this guy has a PhD in psychology?" Unfortunately, perhaps he slept through the lesson on self-regulation. Self-regulation, or what some people might refer to as "willpower", is a cognitively demanding task, involving multiple processes, including self-monitoring (what am I doing?), social comparisons (what would I like to be doing or what should I be doing), and thought suppression (am I thinking about the thing I shouldn't be thinking about?). These processes require a great deal of our working memory, basically short term memory, which years of psychological research shows is a limited resource. Ever hear the expression "5 plus or minus 2"? That is the number of digits you can keep in your working memory at a time. That comes from a psychologist also, unfortunately, named Miller (George A. Miller, in fact), who hopefully would have been a bit more thoughtful in what he tweeted.

Some research does show that ability to self-regulate in childhood (usually measured by ability to forgo a small reward  - often sweets - for a larger reward later - often more sweets) has a significant correlation with ability to self-regulate later (frequently measured by achievements and completion of higher education, like a graduate degree). It's possible, then, that Miller did pay attention to this lesson, but got the wrong message. This research does not support (or even say) that children who like to eat a lot are unlikely to obtain higher degrees. The studies are simply operationalizing their concepts using things kids can understand; children, regardless of their weight status, in general like treats, and even the children who were able to forgo the treat now for a bigger treat later still ate the treat. And ate more as a result of their self-regulation. Kids who were able to "self-regulate" because they didn't actually like the treat offered were probably not included in the study results, because what they were doing was not truly self-regulation.

Additionally, the ability to self-regulate is a general trait. It's not situation-specific. So people who are shown to be good at self-regulation in one situation are likely good at self-regulating in another situation. BUT, not if those situations occur at the same time; because it's a general trait, and a limited resource, exercising strong self-regulation in one situation can actually lessen your ability to self-regulate in another. So people who practice what Miller refers to as "willpower" in completing their dissertation might actually find it difficult to self-regulate in another situation, such as healthy eating.

And grad students eating unhealthily? Yeah, that never happens. </sarcasm>

Further, grad students have another thing that could stand in the way of maintaining a healthy weight. Sleep deprivation has been shown to have a strong effect. I heard one doctor say, "Trying to diet while sleep deprived is like trying to ski uphill." Sleep deprivation has a lot of negative effects on your brain, including monitoring of hunger and satiation (feeling full). When you're sleep deprived, you feel hungry much more because your brain is telling you you're hungry, even if physiologically, you have ingested enough. So those good grad students who work long hours, late into the night, to finish their dissertation might find themselves reaching for the Cheetos a bit more often than those able to get a healthy amount of sleep. Of course, eventually, sleep deprivation does begin to attack your cognitive skills, but that's another post for another day.

So what am I trying to say? What many have said in the backlash against Miller's tweet: that weight status has no bearing on ability to complete a graduate degree. While also giving a healthy dose of psychological knowledge. Because regardless of what I may think when I look at my waistline, I have my brain and all the psychology info acquired through years of education.

Oh yeah, and my PhD. While eating all the carbs I want. Take that, Miller! Now where's that chocolate cake?

~Thoughtfully (and carb-iliciously) yours,

Sara