Now ye're talking - to a psychologist

Ivanna Deep Mask wrote: »

A little bit of background first. I watched a YouTube short documentary that told the story of the people that had to manually review the "dark side" of the content being uploaded onto a social platform. Child porn, murder, animal abuse etc.. etc..

Turns out it's an extremely difficult job for the people and the company has a high attrition rate. There were also some complaints from the staff that the company wasn't doing enough to filter out this material (that's why you're here...) but I digress.

This got me thinking that perhaps a sociopath would be ideal for this type of job. Now unless I have the definition of a sociopath completely wrong, do you think it's a viable solution to the problem of filtering online content? Also, have you worked with a sociopath during your career and do you have any insights on them?

---

Have you noticed a common denominator with the troubled (for lack of a better word) people you work with? IE: Are you able to predict with reasonable accuracy the cause of their current predicaments within a few minutes of talking with them?

It's an interesting thought, but I think it would be a bad idea for a multitude of reasons! Sociopathy is more commonly referred to as Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD), and it's not just characterised by a lack of empathy - there's a lot more going on, including aggression, impulsivity, lack of remorse etc. It's probably not the ideal group of people to show videos of extreme content to on a daily basis.

It's also very rare to meet someone who truly meets the criteria for ASPD. I've worked with people who had no theory of mind, meaning they had no insight into how anyone else might feel, so they could easily harm another person without caring. But I don't think I've worked directly with anyone who met the full criteria for ASPD, no.

It's not possible to "predict" the cause of people's difficulties, no. My job would be a lot easier if it were!

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I'm a teacher, and it seems "mindfulness" is the go-to trendy weapon to whip out when the students are freaking out (to put it a bit harshly)
Having a bad day ? quick, feel your toes ! feel your heels !

I don't buy into it myself, it's like hypnosis, I can't put myself in that state where I'd be staging myself telling myself to do something (like breathe, relax, feel your toes, whatever...).

My meditation, or my mindful moments, I just experience them when I take time for myself and go do my hobbies.

It is strange for me that we should be (I mean, as educators for example we are encouraged to be_) teaching the new generations a scripted procedure to deal with normal, every day upsets or tiredness.

I understand that in some cases, for example in the case of a person with autism, scripts and instructions for life situations are useful and appropriate (sometimes essential).
Most other people should really build up the skills to deal with life's challenges from experience, imo. The chances to encounter these experiences (and the tips to manoeuvre them) are to be provided by parents (and the school environment).

Do you feel we are a bit overprotective these days when it comes to mental health ? Is modern psychology "helicopter parenting" the new generations ?

I think the poster above about the "social anxiety" generation is expressing the same idea.

I would ask, what is "normal" upset? What's normal for me could be devastating for you. Mindfulness is just one of those skills you've mentioned, that we can build up to deal with life's challenges. It's not about avoiding experiences, it's about experiencing them fully.

No, I don't think we're over-protective. There's still huge stigma about mental health, the suicide rate is still sky-high and until those are dealt with, I don't think we need to worry about being over-protective .

Ivanna Deep Mask wrote: »

Thanks for the answer! Onto more questions.

During your studies did you ever need to study the psychological profiles of infamous people? Pablo Escobar, Ted Kaczynski to name a few. If so are there any interesting insights you can share?

In a previous post you wrote:


I'd like to pick your brain on a hypothetical but ethically dubious thought experiment. Would you mind that?

No, sadly I didn't study anyone. I have read many a Wikipedia page, but I don't think that's what you had in mind!

Feel free to post your experiment and I'll try to comment on it .

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Thanks for the answer above.

I personally think there is a link between resilience or lack thereof and the rate of suicides or mental illness, so while I see your point, I still also see a lot of what I think are failings.



When I was in my 20s, I had depression and attended a psychiatrist for a while. One day I hated him, the next session I thought maybe he had something going for him, then he was a genius, then I thought he was clueless and heartless, then the week after I was in love with him...

Is that a clinical approach, what happens ? Is it like stages that all psy know will happen and that they bring about on purpose ?

It sounds like you're describing transference, which is quite common during therapy. It's a psychoanalytic theory about the redirection of feelings towards another person. It doesn't always happen, and it doesn't follow any set pattern, but it's common to notice it happening from time to time.

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Is there a stage in life where changing is not really possible? The traits are so deeply ingrained that the time requirement to remove them is just too great and damage limitation is the most pragmatic option?
Why do people know what they must do, but still be unable to do anything about it?

What are dreams and can any conclusions be obtained from them? My analyst is always interested in my dreams and sometimes I feel that the interpretation of the dream is tailored to my situation rather than a true breakdown of the actual dream itself.

That's a really interesting question about life stages. I think probably yes, there is a point where change is unlikely. I didn't like working with older adults (65+) because it felt like trying to move mountains to make the smallest change. There was so many times I was working with people in the 75-85 age bracket and I thought "If you'd just come to therapy 20 years earlier...". That being said, that's just my personal view. I know many psychologists who work with older adults who'd say the exact opposite! Everyone is capable of change, but it depends on motivation. Not everyone sees the point or benefits in changing.

Re: dreams. I actually did a lot of research into dreams, many years ago. There is no scientific evidence at all that they mean anything, unfortunately. At the time I did the research, the best theories were that (in very lay language), when we store or access a memory (which can be pretty much any thought your have during the day, whether you're consciously aware of them or not), the brain connections used are 'fresher' and more easily triggered than other connections. When we fall asleep, brain waves pass through your brain from your brain stem through to your frontal lobes. As they go, they can stimulate these fresher connections and trigger those recently stored or accessed memories. We humans love to create patterns, so on waking, we immediately put the fragments of a dream we remember into the closest to a coherent narrative that we can manage.

That's the neuroscience explanation for it, anyway. There was a psychological theory that dreams prepare us for events that may happen, so we have a frame of reference for how to deal with it.

Even though I don't 'believe' in it, I still love to indulge in a bit of dream analysis, but to the best of our knowledge, it's like horoscopes or tarot cards - it feels individual to ourselves, but we've just cleverly interpreted things in a way that suits ourselves, without being totally aware of it.

Tell me how wrote: »

Why do you think our society has facilitated this? There are plenty people to admire in all walks of life so why is it that those who often seem to rise to the top do not have any discernible justification to belong there?

Also, on a similar topic, I dislike intensely the Kardashian culture and while I do not watch them or follow them in any way, I am still curious about the psyche they possess.

Do you think that it is an indication of very strong confidence which allows them (or others like them) to expose themselves to the world as they do, or do you think it is (more often) insecurity which leads them to need the validation of an audience.

I suppose it's aspirational. The majority of us don't excel in any particular area to a significant degree, so the average person is unlikely to become rich and famous on the basis of their talents. But reality TV, and more recently social media, has cut a pathway to celebrity that previously wasn't available. There's more room at the top now, and the average person is now seeing other average people at the top. It shows that anyone can do it, if you're determined enough.

I know nothing about the Kardashians, to be honest. I would be very hesitant to offer any psychological insights into them .

Tell me how wrote: »

On relationships. And more specifically, true love. And just to clarify, I do not see myself as in any way being in a position to judge others but I do have these thoughts at times

Everyone dreams of finding the one, many do (or say they do) and unfortunately some don't.
I sometimes feel there is a difference between how someone says they feel about a partner, and how they actually show this and treat them (Both males and females of course).

Generally speaking, to what degree do you think individuals end up with their perfect partner or is it more often the case that people select someone to play the part of husband/wife/boyfriend/girlfriend and then go along with it as best they can?

TLDR: True love. How real is it?

Wow, what a question! You're really making my brain work .

I don't believe in "The One", personally. I think there could be any number of suitable partners for a person. But I do wonder if sometimes people are so frightened that they might not meet The One that they settle for The Will Do and try to shape them into The One. If there's one thing I've learned, it's that you can't change another person. You can only change yourself. So relationships based on one person thinking the other will change in some fundamental way are - IMO, of course - unlikely to succeed. I'm sure we can all think of couples where you look at them and wonder "Why the hell are you together?". Sometimes they'll stick it out forever because they're afraid of the alternative, other times they'll split up, and other times again, there's things going on behind the scenes that we don't see as outsiders but might indicate they're a lot more suited in private than they appear in public.

Going back to any earlier point I made, though, I think the best way to have a solid relationship is to have open dialogue constantly. I know when someone says to me "Don't do that", I'm likely to ignore them or react negatively. But if they said "Would you mind not doing? It's because [explanation of why they don't want you to do it]", I'll pretty much always do what they've asked. Likewise, if your partner said "Let's do X activity", rather than just saying "No", try explaining exactly why you don't want to. Open dialogue helps relieve so much potential tension and irritation, and explaining your thinking and motivations is almost always received well by others. I know that's not part of the question you asked, but I've typed it now so I'm leaving it there!

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

Thanks OP, some of what you're saying is totally over my head but most is very good, well done!

Can you please explain personality disorders? Is there any way of curing someone with a personality disorder? How come you can have more than one? Is it genetic - can it pass from parent to child?

How do you think Ireland, as a collective psych, is doing at the moment? What's your biggest concern for the future?

Great question! A "personality disorder" is a contentious label that basically says that a person's presenting difficulties are an intrinsic part of their personality, and always have been, and can't be easily changed. It can be used as a really derogatory term within mental health services, unfortunately, and can be used as an excuse to avoid treating a person. It's a really stigmatising label, sadly. There's some good information here.

The most common one you're likely to hear of is Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD; aka Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder). That's often characterised by experiencing very strong feelings towards the self and others, and those feelings can change abruptly in a matter of hours, sometimes. One minute a person with BPD might think you're the best person in the whole world, and the next day they might hate you.

You can have more than one because our personalities are made up of so many different facets. It's the same as how you can experience more than one mental health issue at a time. There's no clear "cause", as with pretty much all mental health issues. It's likely to be a combination of a genetic vulnerability and early life experiences, particularly if you experienced any trauma or neglect, or had a chaotic or unstable upbringing. But those factors don't have to be present either.

Personality disorders can be treated, but it's often a longer road than other mental health issues. Treatment might last several years or longer because it often involves a person learning new ways of dealing with pretty much everything.

Ivanna Deep Mask wrote: »

Do you believe you're good at spotting liars when conversing with people in a professional and casual context?

No! I think I'm pretty bad at it. Despite everything, I'm still a bit overly optimistic and I tend to assume everyone is telling me the truth unless they're really obviously lying.

Ivanna Deep Mask wrote: »

Thanks for answering my questions!

--

When working with a patient how do you formulate the approach you'll be using for their treatment? Do you start by asking a predetermined set of questions and then tailoring the steps based on feedback from the patient?

Do personality types (Myers Briggs / Jung etc..) play a major role in your diagnosis and treatments?

I'll have read as much as I can before meeting a person for the first time, so I'll have an idea of why they're coming (this is assuming they've been referred, not in private work). I have a broad set of questions I'll use to get them to start talking, and I very much tailor it to what they say. Most people talk a lot, in my experience, but when a person is quite withdrawn or reluctant, I usually have a mental list of things I can go through. I generally use a CBT (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy)-based approach, but I won't decide on an intervention until the assessment is complete. There are 'models' of treatment that you can use to guide the intervention, depending on the presenting issue.

I can't think of a situation where a standard personality assessment would add much to my work, off the top of my head, so no, I'd never use the ones you listed. There are tools to screen for the potential presence of a personality disorder, so I might use that if the situation called for it.