Perusing Psychology

I’m in the process of buying a larger car for my expanding family. I’ve spent more than a year researching cars and prices online. Now that I’m to the point where purchasing a car is necessary, I have been looking at cars more seriously. Last night I finally decided to go visit a local car dealer to see what they had on their lot and see what their prices were like.

I got to this dealership and was approached by a woman who had just started working there. I gave her the benefit of the doubt and believed her – she really did seem new. As she walked me over to start looking at the type of car I am interested in, we were joined by a more experienced salesman who was tagging along to make sure the new saleswoman knew what she was doing. This salesman asked how much I was looking to spend. It is not usually a good idea to reveal how much you are looking to spend because of a reason I will discuss below. However, because I was just looking (although I did not tell him that) and was not going to buy a car that night (unless they happened to have a great one for a great price), I divulged my limit. I said I was willing to spend a specific amount of money. His reply, “You know that with taxes, tags, and fees [our exorbitantly high fee - he didn't say that but their fee was exorbitant] it’ll be $X more. Is that okay?” I replied, “Yes, it is.”

I stated I was going to pay cash and that I wasn’t going to trade in my car (it’s usually best to only agree you are going to trade in your car once the final price on the other car is settled in writing; that way the dealer does not mark up the price of the new car by how much the trade-in is worth). Frank [not his real name] the salesman said, “OK, I think these cars [there were three we looked at] are probably in the ballpark of your price range but I can’t be sure until I talk with the boss and he crunches some numbers.” I look at two of the cars – they were okay but I really just wanted to see the prices. Of course, there are no prices on the cars at this particular lot. Why not? Well, when I stated that I would rather talk prices first before driving any of the cars, Frank said, “Oh, well we don’t want to go through all the time and effort to talk about price before you actually drive the car. What if you find out you don’t like it?”

I mentally rolled my eyes and said, “OK, I’ll drive this car – I haven’t driven one of them before.” I decided to play his game a little bit and see where we went. If I liked the car and it was a good price, I might purchase it (but not without having my wife view and drive it). The car looked nice – it had leather seats, a DVD player, but it was a bit older and had more miles than I wanted. Said Frank, “Oh, this is a nice car – we just got it on the lot yesterday and it’ll sell fast.”

Let’s stop. Where’s the psychology in all of this? One sales technique being used on me (and I played along) is what is called the foot in the door technique. Ask little favors or even give little rewards (in this case it was as simple as pointing out the nice leather seats and DVD player and other features) and someone is more willing to listen to you and purchase your wares because they feel obligated and a bit committed. Start small and build from there. So the goal is to get the customer in the car and – assuming they like it – they will be more willing to stick with it. The other psychology sales technique he did was create a scarce commodity – make the car seem like it was going to go quickly and you feel like you have to act quickly. I’ll get back to this is a bit.

One thing I forgot to mention – as we started looking at this particular car Frank pushed the power sliding door button and nothing happened. “I’m not very familiar with this particular car,” he said, trying to cover up the fact that the power door was in fact not working (it could be opened manually). This experience was in the context of Frank talking about how they do such a thorough inspection of all their cars and fix what needs to be fixed. Then Frank says that he has to drive the car off the lot and then we’ll switch and I can drive it. I’m thinking, “That’s new, I haven’t had a dealer require that before but I don’t shop for cars very often.” So Frank starts up the car and says, “I like to let the car warm up for a little bit before driving it, my father was a mechanic and I like to take care of my cars.” The whole time the dashboard lights are dimming and then getting brighter, then dimming and back and forth for about 10 seconds. Then the car “warms up” and we’re off.

He turns the first corner in the lot and I feel a slight clunk from the transmission – that’s a great sign (that was sarcasm). I’ll fast forward a bit – I drive the car. It’s okay but I’m not too impressed. I’m impressed more with the overall look and fit and finish than its drivability. It drove okay but I didn’t think the transmission would last long. We get back to the dealership and I’m interested in what kind of ‘deal’ he’ll offer me on the vehicle. I’m an eternal optimist so I’m thinking, “Well, if he can sell it to me for $X, I might purchase it.” $X being much, much lower than my limit is. We go into his little office (the other saleswoman is there with us the whole time. She was very nice but mostly just observing at this point.) and start the paperwork “for the quote.” Again, this is a continuation of the foot in the door technique. He was trying to get me to the point where I had put enough effort in that I would say, “OK, why not?” Frank scurried off to go talk prices with his boss.

Now one of my favorite parts of this experience. He comes back with an offer that is “almost at [my] target.” It was 11% higher than my target price. If I were less polite I would have laughed. I thought, “Is he serious?! That’s ‘almost’ my target price?” This guy is very generous (to himself) with my money. I looked at the various other fees that get added on. Their dealership fee was about 8% of the car’s price. Here’s another psychological technique he used (I don’t have a specific name for it, although I’m sure one exists) – on the paper the car had a “listed” price that was at least 25% higher than his ‘reduced’ deal for me. Stores do this a lot – put things on ’sale’ and people will buy them, even if the sale price is higher than the normal price. People see “reduced prices” or “sale” and think they are getting a good deal. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not. Had I purchased the car (I certainly wasn’t remotely considering it at that point), I would have received a bad ‘deal’.

This salesman had a problem. He thought he was in control of the situation. He forgot that the customer is always in control unless he or she relinquishes that control. I had a firm grip on my control, he just did not realize it. I did surrender enough to keep the car buying process moving because I wanted to see where it would go. I wanted to see his ‘best deal’ for me on this car. While we were going through initial paperwork he mentioned that he had a couple coming from “[not-so-nearbyville] or was it [slightly-closer-nearbyville] tomorrow to look at and probably purchase the vehicle.” He might have been telling the truth about the matter – I like to give him the benefit of the doubt – but the whole statement was too contrived to seem real, even if it was. Once again he was trying to make the car a scarce commodity that I had to act on “tonight or it will be gone tomorrow!”

One more point about why he thought he was in control of me – I am not a rude person and I can come across as rather soft and indecisive at times. I look like an easy target. I’m sure I am in some situations – like with my daughters – but I was fully in control in this situation; I didn’t want to be rude and just stand up and leave. I said the price was still too high and I called him out on his statement that the price was “almost at my target”. Maybe in government spending but not for me. He left to talk with his boss and came back stating that in order for his boss to give me a better deal I had to sign my name to show that I was “committed” to this car – that’s just some more sales psychology. Once you start to sign things, even meaningless pieces of paper like the one I signed, you tend to feel more committed and it is harder to back down. The only thing I was committed to was not buying the car. I also was enjoying the psychology of the situation, I was a bit impressed with his sales techniques. He actually didn’t come across as pushy as other salesmen I’ve met but his techniques needed some polish. He never even found out if I really liked the car. I said it was nice and he jumped on that, he assumed he could sell the car to me. I know that is optimistic salesmanship on his part but selling is much easier if it is a car (or other thing) that the person actually wants.

His sales shortcomings were not entirely his fault, I was quite non-committal (which came across as “almost convinced to buy”) about the process because I really just wanted to see how low the price would go. I was in a social psychology experiment mode. He came back with the price ‘down’ to my target price (the dealer fee was still high, even if I was really interested in the car). I said I’d have to talk with my wife before I committed to anything. They were even trying to get me to make a “fully-refundable” deposit (again, more committal) on the car to “lock in the price so we don’t sell the car tomorrow.” Another great part of this process was how the salesman was always on ‘my side.’ As if he’s not making a commission on this sale! I could see him sweat as I ‘talked’ the price down. OK, that was a bit of literary license – I didn’t see him sweat – but I knew he was looking at a fading commission (unless his boss was going to give him a big commission for actually selling this car). Frank kept stating that he was on my side, “This couple who wants to buy the car doesn’t even have any kids so I’d rather sell it to you since you’ll get better use out of it. You actually need it with three kids. I’d rather sell it to you even though this other couple is willing to pay a couple thousand dollars more than you are for the car.” Wait, what?! He has an opportunity to sell that car for $2000 more and he wants to sell it to me instead? Maybe he really did want to but even my optimistic self was cynical about his statement in light of the rest of the night.

Also, somehow the “wife of this couple [had] already looked at the car” even though they live a couple hours away and the car had “just arrived 24 hours ago.” Maybe he honestly didn’t know when they got the car on the lot but that was a bit too much of “scarce commodity” for me. He was so eager to sell me the car that his stories stopped matching up. Frank stretched the truth one too many times. I saw that he wasn’t going to go down in price any more so I ended my informal experiment. I made my exit and walked away saying that I’d talk to my wife. I did, but mainly to say that we didn’t want that particular car. As I was walking away, Frank knew he had lost me. He asked a couple times, “Was I too pushy?” He realized that he hadn’t been in control of the situation; he hadn’t read me correctly. And yes, at least to me, he was too pushy (but that is just my personal preference. I know he was not particularly pushy as far as car salesmen go).

I went home and searched for the car online. It came up (same dealership) with an online price $200 less than the lowest deal he “cut me”. Most dealerships have separate online salespeople so the general on-lot salespeople are not usually aware of the online price (it’s usually lower than what is offered in person) but I still think it is funny how his best deal for me was higher than the online price. That stems from me telling him my limit in the first place (again, I did that on purpose). I further discovered that the car had been on the lot for about 5 weeks instead of only 24 hours.

I hope I don’t sound like I was being manipulative. I honestly was interested in the car if it was a good enough price (okay, so maybe a toss-a-coin-in-a-well-and-have-a-bag-of-gold-fall-at-your-feet kind of price). It never even came close to what I would be willing to pay for it. Besides, had it come down to it I would have demanded reductions because of the non-power power door as well as other issues. So much for their “thorough inspection” that according to Frank was worth paying upwards of a couple thousand dollars more for a car from them than I could elsewhere.

I laughed much of the way home. This was not laughter aimed at Frank as much as the fact that the whole process was just ridiculous. There’s a reason I do not like dealing with many car salespeople. I know most are good people but on the job they are salesmen; it is their job to sell you a car, even if it sometimes means burnishing the truth a little or a lot. That’s one reason I am not a salesman, I don’t think people should pay more than something is worth.

I share this experience to help people be more aware of common sales techniques. Buying a car is a big decision and is daunting for most people. Remember that you are in control. Watch out for the foot in the door (that doesn’t mean you don’t let them do it, just recognize what they are doing and be willing to walk away). Also, be more alert when the salesperson is doing something as a favor to you. Maybe he or she is but remain skeptical. Actions like that (unless you personally know the salesperson) should raise some red flags. Also watch out for the pressure situations of ’scarcity’; yes, the car really might be sold tomorrow but if you aren’t completely comfortable just walk away. Find a salesperson (at another dealership if possible) who doesn’t pressure you. I’ve met some very nice and good car salespeople who sell cars without resorting to pressure. Also, if the stories of the salesperson start contradicting each other, walk away. Also, don’t give out your price target because they will almost always meet and surpass that target. If you say you can spend $16,000, many dealers will suddenly have $13,000 and $14,000 cars for sale for $16,000. You can give soft estimates of what you are willing to spend but if anything, say you are willing to spend less than you actually are. Again, as the consumer you are always in control (except in emergencies and hopefully then people are not there to take advantage of you) if you do not give up that control. Lastly, sales are not always good deals. Always do your research ahead of time for major purchases like a car.

I’m going to go back online and search more. I’d rather buy a car on eBay than deal with another car salesperson in person. The whole experience was interesting though. There were other sales techniques Frank used but I didn’t go into them. I’m sure I even missed a few. I won’t go into the psychology of sales (meaning explaining how to be a good salesperson), it’s not my expertise, but there are ways of being a great salesperson without pressuring or resorting to dishonesty.

A 2008 study found that Argentina has 145 psychologists per 100,000 citizens. That is the highest rate in the world. The Wall Street Journal reports the following numbers (from 2005 – the number of psychologists in Argentina has increased since that time):

Executive function is a term that describes a wide range of cognitive behaviors and processes. It is broad enough of a term that some people simply describe it as, “what the frontal lobes do.” When asked what exactly the frontal lobes do do, some revert to the circular definition of “executive functions.” However, executive functions are distinct from – but related to – what the frontal lobes do. The frontal lobes are involved in motor functions (e.g., pre-motor and primary motor areas), eye movement (e.g., frontal eye fields), memory (e.g., acetylcholine-producing portions of the basal forebrain), and language (BA 44,45 or Broca’s area). In addition, some executive functions incorporate areas of the brain outside the frontal lobes – the parietal lobes or basal ganglia, for example. Like many cognitive domains, executive functions are part of a distributed network of brain structures and regions.

Most neuropsychologists however, would define (or at least accept the following definition of) executive function similar to this: Executive function is the ability to selectively attend to, work with, and plan for specific information. This means that executive function is deciding what information, cognitions, or stimuli are relevant, holding and working with that information, and then planning what to do with it. As such, executive function is largely the roles of planning and organization. It is also the ability to recognize and learn patterns (i.e., cognitive sets) but also have the cognitive flexibility to respond to set changes and make a shift in set. Executive function also involves being able to select the appropriate response or behavior while at the same time inhibiting inappropriate responses or behaviors.

Executive functions have been compared to the conductor of an orchestra who, in order to make sense of the disparate instruments, sounds, and parts, must coordinate the members and lead the efforts of all the components of the orchestra. Executive functions also have been compared to chief executive officers of companies. These comparisons demonstrate that executive functions are arguably the most complex and highest of all cognitive functions. However, just like most other cognitive functions, executive functions are comprised of relatively simple processes (e.g., attention and processing speed) – it is just the unique combination of these more basic processes that makes executive functions so powerful.

One potential problem with executive function as a cognitive domain is that it is large and loose. Many tests have been developed, or at least used, to assess executive function (e.g., Wisconsin Cart Sort Test, Stroop Color-Word Task, clock drawing, and so forth). Even though all such tests are used as measures of executive functioning, scores on them do not always correlate highly with each other. They do not always cluster together when subjected to principal components analysis or even structural equations modeling. This means that even though neuropsychologists have many purported tests of executive function, they all seem to measure different aspects of executive function. This might partially result from executive functioning tests being differentially affected by basic cognitive processes such as processing speed.

Even though, as previously mentioned, I do not believe executive functions and frontal lobe functions are synonymous terms, are we able to localize executive functions to the frontal lobes? Largely we can. The most evidence from neuroimaging studies and neurological injuries demonstrate that the prefrontal cortex – the area of the brain that is phylogenetically youngest and most advanced and as such, proportionately larger in humans than any animal – is necessary (but not necessarily sufficient) for executive functioning. When this area is disrupted in humans, they exhibit poor decision-making skills, including poor planning and poor maintenance or self-regulation of behavior. One area of the prefrontal cortex particularly involved in executive functions is the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (area 46) – although both the orbitofrontal and anterior cingulate are involved in aspects of executive functions.

In 1986 Alexander, Delong, and Strick published their seminal work on five parallel and closed cortico-striato-thalamo-cortical loops. These frontal-subcortical circuits were hypothesized to be involved in a range of behaviors and cognitions based on the varying cortical connections of the loops. Previously, many researchers did not well-understand the role that the basal ganglia played in any sort of “higher” function; in fact, most viewed the basal ganglia as involved mainly in motor behaviors. Alexander, Delong, and Strick’s article set off a flurry of research into the functions of these frontal-subcortical circuits, which have been verified as existent in humans (Middleton & Strick, 2000). Over time different theories have modified these circuits, including that they are composed of direct, indirect, and hyperdirect pathways, which all function at different speeds or timings to allow the basal ganglia to regulate behavior. Mink (1996) proposed that actions (e.g., producing a specific word) are regulated by the direct and indirect pathways, which serve as large components of our ability to select and inhibit correct and incorrect responses, respectively. It is as if each individual fronto-cortical loop allows us to properly attend to the correct behavior or response and inhibit all other behaviors or responses, much like the DLPFC and orbitofrontal cortex and their associated loops are involved in the selection and inhibition of behavior, both major aspects of executive function.

Just as damage to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) produces deficits in executive function, damage to any part of the DLPFC loop also results in executive dysfunction. Benke, Delazer, Bartha, and Auer (2003) presented two clinical cases of patients with left caudate lesions (the lesions also affected part of the anterior limb of the internal capsule as well as portions of the putamen and pallidum; however, the infarcts affected the caudate the most). Among other deficits, both patients had executive function impairments, including problem-solving deficits, many perseverative errors, and set-shifting problems. Even though the patients had no direct DLPFC damage, they exhibited similar deficits to patients with DLPFC lesions. These executive deficits persisted over time.

As a cognitive domain, and even as broad as it might be, executive functioning has ecological validity. Price and colleagues (2008) found that executive dysfunction was related to greater difficulty performing IADLs. Specifically, patients with executive dysfunction had more difficulty performing IADLs than patients with memory deficits did. Thus, how quickly, flexibly, and accurately people can organize, solve, plan, or attend to specific neuropsychological tasks seems to correlate with their accomplishment of everyday tasks of life, such as finances, driving, and shopping.

References

Alexander, G. E., DeLong, M. R., & Strick, P. L. (1986). Parallel organization of functionally segregated circuits linking basal ganglia and cortex. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 9, 357-381.

Benke, T., Delazer, M., Bartha, L., Auer, A. (2003). Basal ganglia lesions and the theory of fronto-subcortical loops: Neuropsychological findings in two patients with left caudate lesions. Neurocase, 9, 70-85.

Middleton FA, & Strick PL. (2001). Basal ganglia output and cognition: evidence from anatomical, behavioral, and clinical studies. Brain Cogn., 42, 183-200.

Mink, J. W. (1996). The basal ganglia: Focused selection and inhibition of competing motor programs. Prog Neurobiol, 50, 381-425.

Price, C.C., Garvan, C., and Monk, T. (2008). Type and severity of cognitive impairment in older adults after non-cardiac surgery. Anesthesiology, 108, 8-17.

Hypothesis testing first starts with theory. Theories are particular assumptions about the way things are. After a theory is formulated, a conceptual hypothesis is created, which is a more specific (than pure theory) prediction about the outcome of something. Next an experimental hypothesis is created. This is where definitions are operationalized so specific matters can be tested. For example, you could operationalize affection as number of hugs and kisses and other related actions. Then you statistically hypothesize in order to measure and test one of two hypotheses: the null, or H0, which represents non-effect (i.e. no difference between samples or populations, or whatever was tested), and an alternate hypothesis, H1.

The alternate hypothesis is that there is a difference, or an effect. It can be that one mean is greater than another, or that they are just not equal. So, the purpose of statistical testing is to test the truth of a theory or part of a theory. In other words, it is a way to look at predictions to see if they are accurate. To do this, researchers test the null hypothesis. We do not test the alternate hypothesis (which is what we think will happen). We do this because we base our testing on falsification logic (i.e., it only takes one example to prove a theory is wrong but conversely you cannot prove that a theory is right without infinite examples, so we look for examples where we are wrong).

The probability associated with a statistical test is assigned to the possibility of the occurrence of Type I error. This is the probability that you will reject the null hypothesis when in fact the null is true and thus should not have been rejected. It is saying there was an effect or a difference when there really was not.

The process of statistical testing can result in probability statements about the theories under consideration but only under certain conditions. Statistical testing and hypothesizing is representative of theory when it is conceptually (verbally and operationally) connected to theory. This means that there has to be a logical and direct association between the statistical probability statements and the theory in order for those statements to represent the overarching theory. This link is forged by the experimental and conceptual hypotheses.

There are at least two big trends in social psychology, or at least ones that may great affect social psychology. Currently, at least according to Berntson and Cacioppo (2000), one of the fastest growing trends in psychology as a whole is psychobiology. This trend is also seen in social psychology. Another movement is that of the internet (McKenna & Bargh, 2000). As the legitimacy of the internet grew, there was more research interest in it and more interest in using it for research purposes. I will first discuss psychobiology and then the internet. I will finish with my prediction of where social psychology is going.

I think psychobiology is a growing area in part because of the many technological advances that are being applied to psychology (namely, brain imaging and computer modeling). Psychology is becoming a technology-driven science. I think that social psychology will all move this way because of the new ways to study the concepts of social psychology. In part, it provides new ways to research “old” topics, not that anything in social psychology is that old.

Researchers can now look at biological foundations of social behavior and perception. For example, maybe there is a certain area of the brain that is activated when people name racial stereotypes. Also, there could be a different area activated when people are asked what stereotypes they believe, if any. Maybe people who say they do not believe the stereotypes still have the same area of the brain activated as those who do believe them, but in addition they could have additional brain activity associated with suppressing those stereotypes. Knowing this would help us understand that stereotypes really are prevalent, but some people are just really good at suppressing them and don’t even know that they are doing it. I know this was a slightly vague hypothesis, but my point is that psychobiology has a lot to add the social psychology.

Read more…

The Crowd Looking at the Clock by Ms. Abitibi

Social psychology is the study of individuals within groups, or as they are affected by others. So, while groups are important and often studied, it is really the individual who ultimately receives the focus. It is different from other subdisciplines in that interpersonal relationships are taken into account. In other words, people’s behaviors, thoughts, and emotions are affected by their relationships to and with others. This differs from cognitive psychology, for example, because cognitive theorists typically are just looking at mental processes and trying to understand the basic nature of thought, without [much] regard to the influence that others have on cognition. I say “much” because social and cognitive psychology have had a long relationship so there is some overlap between the two.

Social psychology is different from behaviorism in that social psychologists look at underlying cognitive processes and behaviorists do not. Although, they are similar in that both look at external influences on behavior (after all, behaviorism is that all behavior is learned from others). So, really the biggest difference between social psychology and all other subdisciplines of experimental psychology is the focus on self and other influences on affect, behavior, and cognition.

These three main components of social psychology—affect, behavior, and cognition—are all areas of psychology where social psychology has provided key and keen insights. One aspect of the uniqueness of social psychological research is how often researchers get surprising results from their studies. First, I’ll address the insights we’ve gained from social psychology about affect (i.e., emotion), behavior, and cognition. Read more…

I’m going to preface my review by stating that the book I’m going to review is not directly about psychology; it has nothing to do with neuroscience. However, it has everything to do with interpersonal relationships and social interactions, which are two areas frequently addressed in psychology. I do not have any affiliation with The Arbinger Institute; I just enjoyed the book.

The book Leadership and Self Deception: Getting Out of the Box was written by The Arbinger Institute. The work was derived from the ideas of C. Terry Warner, a U.S. philosopher. The Arbinger Institute is a management training and consulting firm that works with businesses and individuals to help them improve their businesses and lives. The 168 page book is easy to read; it is written in a simple prose like a novel.

The main character in the book is Tom, a recently-hired mid to upper level manager at the fictional company Zagrum. Throughout the book Tom mainly interacts with two other characters – Bud, his boss who is the executive vice president of the company, and Kate, Zagrum’s president. Both Bud and Kate take time out of their busy schedules to train Tom about “the box”, which is self-deception.

The gist of the book is that much conflict between people is based on self-betrayal and self-deception. It comes from viewing other people as objects, as “things” that either help or hinder our own progress. The self-deception is that we are more important than other people and that they only exist to help us (or at least not stop us) self-actualize (I’m using different terms than used in the book; the author(s) of the book are not particularly fond of the humanistic concept of self-actualization, by the way). However, we deceive ourselves when we think that if we want to have improved relationships with others – especially if they are strained – then it is others who need to change and not ourselves.

Self-betrayal occurs, according to the author(s), when we are not true to that part of ourselves that is other-centered; this results in self-centeredness. In the book the author(s) give an example of how self-betrayal occurs. I’ll summarize that example.

At night a husband and wife are sleeping. The husband wakes up when the baby in the other room starts to cry. The husband’s first thought is to get up and get the child before his wife wakes up; after all, she works so hard all day and needs all the sleep she can get. The husband’s next thought though is that he too works hard all day and needs to get up early for a meeting. “Why should I get up? My responsibility in this family is to go to work and earn money so we can live. I need all the sleep I can get so I can function at my job – I have a big project to complete tomorrow. [Baby continues to cry]. Why doesn’t my wife get up and get that baby? Doesn’t she realize I need to get sleep? Okay, I know she’s awake now. Why doesn’t she get up? Now she’s just being lazy. [And so on].

These types of thoughts often become self-fulfilling prophecies, such that all our our own actions and thoughts inflate our self-worth (i.e., we do see ourselves as good, hard-working people) while simultaneously deflating the self-worth of another (i.e., we attribute certain attributes to them – “lazy” or “inconsiderate” – and then much of what we see them do after that only supports that hypothesis). While this specific example has not occurred with everyone, we have all experienced similar situations. Maybe the situation is at work where you had a thought that you should do something but then didn’t do it. When it created a problem you were able to rationalize your behavior and blame someone else (“I would have done X had Susan done her job” or “I was just too busy with other things to get X done.”). Basically, self-betrayal results from not being true to what you [hopefully] know is the right thing to do. When we don’t do what we know is right, the normal human response is to rationalize and justify our action or inaction in order to protect our egos, per se. This leads to us shifting the blame from ourselves onto others. We start to view others as hindering our progress; when this occurs they stop being people and start being objects (in other words, people are viewed as either starting blocks or stumbling blocks – they help or hinder us).

It is relatively straightforward to see how this can lead to interpersonal problems – at home or at work. The problem is that we do not know that we are betraying and deceiving ourselves, so we continue to ascribe most of our problems to others. The author(s) further points out that even if we recognize our self-betrayal and self-deception, we never will completely be free of these behaviors; however, we will be able to reduce these negative behaviors and improve our relationships with others.

Overall, this book provides an important and novel way to approach interpersonal behavior. The overarching message is that we should not worry about changing others (or even ourselves! – but I’ll let you read the book to understand that); we should instead recognize that the problem lies within ourselves and go from there. One very creative application of this philosophy is how this is being applied in businesses to increase productivity, human relations, public relations, and even the profitability of the company. I’ll let my readers read this book to understand how this philosophical approach to other-interaction can help a business make more money.

One of my criticisms of this approach to interpersonal behaviors is that it is fairly esoteric and difficult to grasp conceptually. That’s not necessarily a negative; however, it means that most people will really have to study and ponder on the concepts in order to understand them. The book also only serves as a brief – but important – introduction to the topic, leaving one a bit unsure exactly how to implement this new attitude and these new behaviors in one’s own life (although, there is enough information in the book that an astute reader can understand enough to follow this method of interpersonal interaction). This is where the Arbinger Institute’s training workshops and seminars come in. Additionally, C. Terry Warner wrote a book called Bonds That Make Us Free: Healing Our Relationships, Coming to Ourselves, which is a more complete description of the concepts found in Leadership and Self-deception.

I recommend the book Leadership and Self Deception: Getting Out of the Box to anyone seeking to develop insight about themselves and their interpersonal interactions.

The human brain is a wondrous thing. It is the single most complex organ on the planet. It sits atop the spinal cord. Gazing upon the brain, one sees four main distinct areas – two roughly symmetrical hemispheres, a cerebellum stuck up underneath the posterior part of the brain, and a brainstem sticking out and down from the middle of the brain. Each cerebral hemisphere is divided into four visible lobes: frontal, temporal, parietal, and occipital. The frontal lobes jut out at nearly a 90 degree angle from the spinal cord and are the largest part of the human brain. The temporal lobes stick out the sides of the brain, like thumbs pointing forward at the side of a fist. The parietal lobes are harder to distinguish. They are just posterior to the frontal lobes and dorsal to (above) the temporal lobes. The occipital lobes are at the very back of the brain, like a caboose on a train.

The outside of the brain is covered with a series of bumps and grooves. The bumps are called gyri (sing. gyrus) whereas the grooves are called sulci (sing. sulcus). This outside part of the brain is filled with tiny cell bodies of neurons, the main functional cell of the brain. Some people estimate that there are 100 billion neurons in the central nervous system (brain + spinal cord). This outer layer of the brain is called the cortex (which means “bark”). The cortex is only about 5mm thick, or about the thickness of a stack of 50 sheets of copy paper, yet it is responsible for much of the processing of information in the brain.

At room temperature the brain is the consistency of warm cream cheese. If removed from the skull and placed on a table, it would flatten and widen out a bit, like jello that is warming up. The brain is encased in a series of protective sheaths called meninges. The outermost encasing is called the dura mater (L. “tough mother”), which is thick and tough and is attached to the skull. The next layer in is softer. It is called the arachnoid layer; it adheres to the brain. Just underneath this layer is where cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) flows. This fluid is produced in holes in the middle of the brain called ventricles. CSF helps cushion the brain as well as remove waste products from the brain. Underneath this is a very thin and fine layer called the pia mater (L. “soft mother”), which adheres directly to the cortex and is difficult or impossible to remove without damaging the cortex. These three layers of meninges serve to protect the brain.

The brain can be roughly split into three functional areas, each one more “advanced” than the previous. The brainstem (and midbrain), which includes such structures as the medulla, pons, and thalamus, activates and regulates the general arousal of the cortex. Damage to the brainstem often results in coma or death. The next rough functional area is the posterior portion of the brain (parietal and occipital lobes and portions of the temporal lobes). This area is heavily involved in sensory processing – touch, vision, hearing. It sends information to other parts of the brain largely through the midbrain structures. The last functional area includes the frontal lobes. This area can regulate all other parts of the brain but is essential for goal-setting, behavior inhibition, motor movements, and language. The frontal lobes are the most advanced area of the brain and arguably the most important for human functioning – for what makes us human. In summary the three areas roughly are responsible for:

1. Overall arousal and regulation
2. Sensory input
3. Output, control, and planning

Underneath the cortex is a large area of the brain that looks white. This area is comprised of the axons of the neurons of the cortex and subcortical structures. These axons are the pathways between neurons – like superhighways connecting cities. The axons look white because the majority are covered with a fatty tissue called myelin. Myelin helps axons work more efficiently and transmit more quickly. The white matter of the brain is as important for normal brain functioning as the gray (neurons) matter is.

The brain is energy-hungry. It cannot store energy so it needs a constant supply of nutrients from blood. However, blood itself is toxic to neurons so the brain has to protect itself from the blood through what is called the blood-brain barrier. This barrier keeps blood cells out of the brain but allows molecules of nutrients (e.g., glucose) to pass into or feed the cells. The entire surface of the brain is covered with blood vessels, with many smaller vessels penetrating deep into the brain to feed the subcortical structures. Deoxygenated blood must be removed from the brain. Veins take the blood out of the brain and drain into venous sinuses, which are part of the dura matter.

The brain works as a whole to help us sense, perceive, interact with, and understand our world around us. It is beautiful in its form and function.

Image: Bi Sang by Seung Ji Baek

When writing or talking about medical patients or therapy clients, it is helpful to describe their presentation. You cover things such as appearance and grooming, mood, openness, language, and thought process. How a client looks can reveal a lot about their lives, stressors, and their overall cognitive functioning. How open they are with you as a doctor or therapist is also important to note. Sometimes people are reticent to talk about themselves (which is very understandable) and very distrustful in general. Some people also don’t know how to talk about themselves, so they don’t.

The language people use also reveals their underlying cognitive functioning. Tangential language, disjointed speech, and slowed speech, for example can mean different things – a thought disorder, depression, acquired brain injury, and so forth. Related to language is a person’s thought process; this is apparent from their language but also in how they describe their problems or their lives.

When discussing mood, there are three general terms doctors use. The first is euphoric – extremely happy. Sometimes it is appropriate for people to exhibit this emotion but it can also be a sign of mania, especially if the positive mood was not seemingly triggered by anything. The next term for a mood state is euthymic, meaning normal, slightly positive mood. This is the mood that most people exhibit most of the time. It is neither positive nor negative (again, with a slight positive lean). The last descriptor for mood is dysthymic, which means depressed or having negative affect.

I’m going to preface my post by stating that the following post was written to help me think through the relationship between neuroscience and therapy. As such, it is a philosophical journey through some of my thoughts and is not even necessarily what I really believe because I’m still working on discovering what I believe. Thought processes like this are one way I try to keep some of my beliefs about psychology and neuroscience balanced. If I start leaning too strongly one way, I’ll start looking for things that disconfirm those beliefs and see what I discover. It’s a bit of playing the Devil’s Advocate with myself and a bit of philosophizing. Some of my friends and I used to do things like this in junior high and high school – having philosophical discussions where we discussed things and even tried to argue for things that we didn’t necessarily believe (e.g., classic topics such as supposing that this world and universe really aren’t real but are just reflections of reality. Again, that’s not something I believe but we would speculate). What does this all have to do with psychology and neuroscience?

The brain is what drew me to psychology initially. However, I vowed I would never go into clinical psychology because I didn’t think I would like therapy or dealing with people’s problems. Over time I discovered neuropsychology. Most neuropsychologists are clinical psychologists so in order or me to be a neuropsychologist, I had to be trained as a clinical psychologist. There are many things I enjoy about clinical psychology but therapy is not one of those things. Granted, most neuropsychologists do not actually do therapy, but we have to be trained in it. I enjoy talking with people in sessions but I haven’t been that impressed with therapy as a whole so far. Maybe that’s just because I haven’t exactly found the particular type of therapeutic method that really “clicks” with me. Cognitive-behavioral therapy is fine but so much of actual therapy in practice is just plain common sense. However, not everyone has a lot of common sense so they need some training in it. Part of me recognizes the validity of therapy but another part of me struggles with it. Now on to my main article.

The more I study the brain and the more exposure I have to therapy (giving, not receiving), the more biased towards the brain I become. What I mean is that we continue to discover more about the brain and as we discover more, the more behavior we can explain based on biology or neurophysiology and the less important I think therapy is. I’ve written about this topic in the past but wanted to briefly revisit it. This is somewhat of a second chapter to that post. Before I continue I wanted to expose one of my biases; I believe humans have free will. Even though some of my beliefs about the brain could be seen as mechanistic and deterministic, I do not believe that a strongly-biological foundation for behavior rules out free will. You can still assume biological foundations without assuming determinism. If, for example, you have a monistic set of assumptions that incorporates both mind – “nonmaterial” – and body – “material” – in one. [I have quotes around nonmaterial and material because mind is not necessarily nonmaterial and body is not necessarily material, well at least philosophically speaking]. Monism is a similar idea to a unified field theory (e.g., Grand Unified Theory) or the Theory of Everything for which some theoretical physicists are searching. That’s not what I’m going to write about and if it didn’t make sense, then don’t worry about it (I discussed this topic in a couple different posts: here {I linked to that post previously} and here). To summarize, I view behavior through a strong biological bias but I do not assume determinism.

As I said earlier, the more I learn about the brain and behavior (through research and observation), the more I lean towards neuroscience and away from “traditional psychology.” However, I still appreciate the psychosocial aspects of behavior; the nature versus nurture dispute will never be resolved because both are important. The environment is important  - all external stimuli are important – but the problem with downplaying biology is that it is the medium of behavior. What I mean is, everything we think, sense, perceive, or do is translated and transmitted through the firing of neurons. This means that all abnormal behavior, which is what psychologists often are interested in, originates in a neuron or related cell. Whether or not the cause of that behavior was internal or external is irrelevant. All events and stimuli are translated into patterns of neuronal firings.

This is why I think that understanding the biology of the brain is the best way to understand a person’s behavior. However, because we have an imperfect understanding of the biology of the brain, we have an imperfect understand of the biological foundations of behavior. This means that until we have a perfect understanding, we cannot ignore the psychosocial aspects of behavior; even with a perfect understand we couldn’t either because even if we understand the “translation” process we may not understand the origin of what needs to be translated. This is where traditional talk therapy can be most beneficial. However, I still believe less and less that talk therapy is the best solution for dealing with many psychological issues. Over time as we discover more and more about the brain, therapy will become even less important.

That is a fairly radical position to take as a student of clinical psychology – it’s more in line with psychiatry, or rather, I believe it’s more in line with neuroscience. I’m not saying that therapy is useless, I’m just saying that as we gain a more perfect understanding of the brain and how various chemicals interact in the brain, we will have less need for people to help others by “talking” through their problems. The better we understand the physiology of the brain, the more natural our pharmaceuticals will be. In other words, it will be easier to mimic and create normal brain functioning. Of course, many will ask, “What is normal?” That’s a good question.

Some may argue that with depression, for example, many people will have negative image and self-evaluations, which can lead to depression. That is true but it’s the classic chicken and egg question. Which came first? Did the negative thoughts cause the depression or did the person experiencing negative thoughts have a biological predisposition to those thoughts and depression? In other words, it is possible that biology originally led to the negative thoughts and not vice versa. This is all speculation but I think there is increasing evidence for this view.

The big problem with my point though is that at some point, it does become a deterministic system in that it’s possible that we could medicate away people’s free will. This is an unacceptable outcome. There would be a lot of power with this knowledge and many opportunities for abuse. That’s an ethical discussion for a later time.

To summarize, I think that as we (speaking in the collective) gain a more perfect understanding of the brain (and even individual differences in the brain) we will be better able to eradicate and prevent many or most psychological disorders. We could potentially stop schizophrenia through genetic engineering or other modifications. Again, I’m not addressing whether or not we should but I believe we will have the ability to at some point. This is why, at the moment I lean more towards neuroscience than I do psychotherapy. Of course, tomorrow I could [I won't] write a post that completely contradicts this one. As I said, this is a process. I think it’s important to argue both sides of the issue.