[recycled material - first appeared here]
Hold onto your politically-correct hats -- today I'm going to suggest that maybe poverty isn't so bad. Maybe it's not the big problem it's cracked up to be.
First, the research that got me thinking. In a statistical study about factors associated with well-being in Costa Rica, Mariano Rojas discovered this -
[O]nly 24 percent of people classified as 'poor' rated their life satisfaction as low. Furthermore, 18 percent of people in the 'non-poor' category also reported low life satisfaction. It is therefore clear that poverty alone does not define an individual's overall well-being and it is possible for someone to come out of poverty and remain less than satisfied with his life. On the other hand, a person can be satisfied with his life even if his income is low, as long as he is moderately satisfied in other areas of life such as family, self, health, job and economic.
This finding agrees with other research into the importance of money to happiness. Namely, it is negligibly important. (Further evidence we aren't Homo capitalists by nature.) Once above a limited threshold, in fact, money seems to matter not at all. The most important contributing factor to life satisfaction? Personality traits. But I digress.
From his findings Rojas concludes,
There is more to life satisfaction than money, and public policy programs aiming to tackle poverty need to move beyond simply raising people's income to also improving their quality of life in other areas.
What are the other areas? Family, health, job . . .
Here's the thing about poverty as a variable: it is frequently a short-cut term. When people talk about poverty as being a problem, they don't necessarily mean a lack of money. Instead, it it a bucket of a word. Inside the bucket, if we bother to look, we find a host of lifestyle factors: family, neighborhood, crime, drug use, social resources, education, healthcare, etc., etc. To do good science, and generate effective public policy, we need to know which of these variables truly matter. We need to get specific.
A pie-in-the-sky push to eliminate poverty is often presented as a panacea for eliminating all of societies woes, from decreasing crime to increasing longevity in minorities and everything in between. But as the above study and others suggest, even for lowest-income individuals, a lack of money itself isn't likely the biggest issue. And in an effort to help, it is smart to focus on the bigger issues.
We should remember, by the way, that poverty is relative. Being classified as poor in India is substantially different than in being "poor" in this country. On the bell-curve of affluence for a given population, the poor are on the trailing edge. No matter how affluent the average.
Rather than "eliminating poverty" (by disfiguring the bell curve of affluence?) the focus should instead be on more specific issues. Healthcare. Jobs. Family variables. Social resources.
Lastly - and this may make a few readers gasp in horror - perhaps some of we liberals need to more tolerant of the existence of less-fortunate individuals. If being poor is not causing a significant degree of suffering, then we may be wise to back off the issue. Our resources could be put to better use -- more precise use, in the least. Otherwise we might merely be attempting to treat our own feelings of discomfort and guilt at the recognition that some people are not as well off as we are.
Claustrophobia, or a fear of tight/closed spaces without escape, was once simply classified as one of many neuroses. What caused a person to experience this fear? Well, it was a neurotic condition. Oh, that explains it...
The word origins of the terms in question are -
Neurosis - 1776, "functional derangement arising from disorders of the nervous system," coined by Scot, physician William Cullen (1710-1790) from Gk. neuron "nerve" (see neuro-) + Mod.L. -osis "abnormal condition." Used in a general psychological sense since 1871; clinical use in psychiatry dates from 1923.
Claustrophobia - coined 1879 (first in article by B.Ball in "British Medical Journal") in Modern Latin, from L. claustrum "a bolt, a means of closing, a place shut in" (in M.L. "cloister," hence claustral), pp. of claudere "to close" (see close (v.)) + -phobia "fear" (see phobia). [source]
To Freud and his intellectual descendants a neurosis is an illness generated by unconscious conflict, often manifest by anxiety and explained as repressed material (thoughts/feelings) pressing for release. This pressure causes the physical and behavioral symptoms. The solution? To liberate the repressed material.
Hmm.
I imagine that there have been people who were skeptical of this type of "explanation" since Freud hit the scene. They certainly had a point.
To this skeptic, hearing that something has been caused by "unconscious conflict" is not unlike hearing, "it's magic." Sounds impressive, but it is highly probable that behind the scene something more specific and perhaps mundane is "going on."
Today we are learning more and more precise and accurate things about the "cause" of claustrophobia and other anxiety disorders (causes? -- likely multivariate in origin, but maybe not). Such as a this finding posted at Eurekalert: Psychologists closing in on causes of claustrophobic fear -
We all move around in a protective bubble of "near space," more commonly known as "personal space." But not everyone's bubble is the same size. People who project their personal space too far beyond their bodies, or the norm of arm's reach, are more likely to experience claustrophobic fear, a new study finds.
The study, to be published in the journal Cognition, is one of the first to focus on the perceptual mechanisms of claustrophobic fear.
"We've found that people who are higher in claustrophobic fear have an exaggerated sense of the near space surrounding them," says Emory psychologist Stella Lourenco, who led the research. "At this point, we don't know whether it's the distortion in spatial perception that leads to the fear, or vice versa. Both possibilities are likely." [emphases added]
Interesting.
I love to see the statements such as, "at this point, we don't know . . . ." Good stuff. If you are looking for easy answers and absolute knowledge, science might not be for you.
About claustrophobia being associated with traumatic experiences, lead researcher Stella Lourenco is quoted as saying,
"[W]e know that some people who experience traumatic events in restricted spaces don't develop full-blown claustrophobia. That led us to ask whether other factors might be involved. Our results show a clear relation between claustrophobic fear and basic aspects of spatial perception."
Notice that the claimed finding is a clear relation and not the nature of the relation.
Gotta applaud this example of more careful science reporting/communication.
Continuing on the recent theme of the problematic mental health presumption that "one size fits all," as far as treatment goes....
For decades it has been becoming clear that a particular style of psychotherapy, be it humanistic, cognitive, family, psychodynamic, will have different degrees of effectiveness for different conditions. For depression, one may work better, marital stress, another.
On a related note, recent research suggests that specific psychotherapeutic approaches may not fit all cultural "feet."
In the EurekAlert piece, Psychologists warn that therapies based on positive emotions may not work for Asians, we read -
In a survey of college students, Asian respondents showed no relationship between positive emotions and levels of stress and depression. For European-American participants, however, the more stress and depression they felt, the fewer positive emotions they reported.
The study indicates that psychotherapies emphasizing positive emotions, which can relieve stress and depression in white populations, may not work for Asians, who make up 60 percent of the world population.
The findings have implications for helping the Japanese recover from natural disasters and subsequent nuclear crisis in March, and for Chinese coping with post-traumatic stress following the 2008 Sichuan province earthquake. [bold added]
Interesting. I'm wondering if in coming years we will realize that the cluster of variables that causes, say, depression, in one person, may not be identical to those causing it in another. So the most effective treatment for depression will be a number of treatments, without one "fitting all" best.
[recycled material - first appeared here]
A new study out of the UK and New Zealand has found that "common mental disorders" may be more common than previously thought. Perhaps twice as common.
The mental disorders in question include anxiety disorders, depression, and substance dependency. The reason for the difference in calculations? While many studies have relied on cross-sectional data(measuring all age groups at one time) provided by hindsight self-reports, newer findings have relied on longitudinal studies (tracking individuals for years and years).
A sample finding -
The best retrospective studies [looking backwards], the US National Comorbidity Surveys (NCS) and the New Zealand Mental Health Survey, have found the incidence of depression from ages 18 to 32 at a rate of about 18 percent. But they have been roundly criticized by some for their rates being too high. The latest analysis from the Dunedin Study found 41 percent of that age range had experienced clinically significant depression.
As I had hoped, the article's author did address a very important issue with this brief paragraph -
On the one hand, it could be argued that the diagnostic standards have been set too low if so many people can be considered mentally ill. On the other hand, perhaps these findings argue for more and better mental health care because the disorders are more common than anyone had realized.
During my most recent years teaching development psychology, one slide I presented on late-life sexual changes in males contained this information: While earlier editions of our textbook had stated that the incidence of erectile dysfunction (ED) in 40 year-olds was roughly 7%, the latest edition had the number at close to 40%. For 65+ year old men, the older textbook had the percentage with ED at less than 20. In the newer book the percentage was over 60. The class would discuss explore reasons for the almost unbelievable increase.
Erectile dysfunction may be more common than previously thought. Depression and other mental disorders may be more common than previously thought.
In terms of present thoughts, I am left with a number of them:
> When we learn about something, we can better identify it. With a sharper focus comes the ability to better probe and see what was undifferentiated before.
> When we have words for something, we will use them. Where we lack words, we will over-extend the use of other words. Many disorders fall along a spectrum, but we only have words to describe the two poles.
> With effective treatments comes financial and professional incentives to use those treatments and to make specific diagnoses. When health care professionals can give their patients definite answers, "You have X; here's a prescription for Y," the patient walks away with two desired things: Something to call his/her troubling condition, and something to do about it right away.
> In the case of anxiety and depression, if these conditions are so common, can we really call them mental "illness"? Why the human propensity to become mentally ill? On the face of it, it doesn't seem very adaptive. Yes, some studies have found that a little bit of a bad thing can come with benefits. Mildly depressed individuals actually tend to make more realistic predictions about future developments than do rosy-eyed others; slightly schizophrenic individuals (those with schizotypal personalities) tend to be quite creative . . . .
> Lastly, an observation. It likewise doesn't seem very adaptive for so many animals in the wild to have fleas and parasites and other physical ailments. (Ailments that we have effective treatments for, and so nearly never suffer from.) Why should human beings be different in a different realm? The brain is a very complex organ that functions in a complex environment: social, emotional, intellectual, etc. Why wouldn't it be prone to imperfect functioning?
I get a thrill out of unexpected findings -- research results that run counter to my own expectations and/or the thinking of society at large.
Consider this science news from Eurekalert -
According to a new study, severely obese adolescents are no more likely to be depressed than normal weight peers. [source]
Why do I enjoy being surprised by findings like this one? Well, first and foremost, a surprise is by nature exciting. Part of my brain gets a fresh hit of dopamine. Or something.
But mostly I enjoy contrary findings because they make two important points, points every skeptical thinker should remember:
1. We cannot simply reason our way to an accurate picture of reality. Our thinking should be based upon good data. What seems to make sense can be flat out wrong. Thus the need for scientific research. What seems totally sensible -- that extremely overweight people would have a higher rate of depression -- may not be the case. Beware of assumptions, as one of the study authors relates:
"People assume that all obese adolescents are unhappy and depressed; that the more obese a teen may be, the greater the impact on his or her mental health," says Elizabeth Goodman, MD, the lead author of the study and the director of the Center for Child and Adolescent Health Policy. "Our findings suggest this assumption is false."
2. Findings that run counter to our expectations often show us just how complicated the real world is. Simple answers are very attractive, with one variable causing change in another, but it is very often much more complicated than x causing y.
So while a person's weight can influence how they feel about themselves, it is not always the case, it may not impact their mental health, and there are likely many other factors involved.
Recent Comments