Dear Dr. Hoobs,

I am troubled by the unending report of crimes committed by professional athletes, both within their sport like Lance Armstrong and PED-using MLB players, and outside as well, like Rae Carruth, the Cowboys player who drove drunk and killed his friend, this idiot and now Oscar Pistorius. Are athletes more likely to commit crimes or are we just more aware of them because of all the resulting media attention? –Bert, Toledo, OH

AP Photo/Themba Hadebe

I should begin with a blanket disclaimer: As of now, Pistorius (and O.J. Simpson, for that matter) has only been accused of crimes, not convicted. Regardless of that, yes, it does seem that professional athletes are frequently under indictment for some crime or another. Not all crimes are equal, however, as violent crime such as murder or rape is different in quality than lying under oath or fraud. As such, there are really two questions here: 1) Are athletes more likely to commit violent crimes and 2) Are they more likely to try to get away with crimes or act deceitfully. I believe the answers, respectively, are: 1) Possibly, but not necessarily, and 2) Yes.

The obvious corollary between athletes and violence is that sports breeds competition and physical aggression (curling excepted), and therefore those who compete in sports at a high level would be more aggressive, and in extremes, potentially violent. But research on this point is currently inconclusive and scant at best. Research does suggests that athletes are more likely to be involved in sexual assault than non-athletes — as one in three college sexual assaults are committed by athletes. This, of course, is a serious concern, but in terms of other crime, there does not appear to be an increase in off-the-field violence.

• SEE ALSO: Nike Can Sure Pick ‘Em: Tiger, Lance, and Now Pistorius

Using sports as a means of expressing aggression is in most cases actually a healthy method to channel built up aggression or rage. In fact, sublimation, a defense mechanism in which individuals transform unacceptable urges into socially acceptable venues is deemed one of the more healthy and mature defenses. While sublimation was initially theorized by Freud (or Frood, to those from San Dimas) to relate to unacceptable sexual urges, it applies to unacceptable violent fantasies as well; instead of acting on one’s violent murderous rage, one can expel that energy as a linebacker.

The other common perception about athletes and violence is that athletes come from poorer and more disadvantaged backgrounds where violence is more prevalent, and therefore violence and crime will be more likely to be used amongst theses. Although individuals from violent backgrounds are more likely to use violence later in life, contrary to popular opinion, athletes are not more likely to have these histories. Of course, stories of athletes such as former NFL receiver Plaxico Burress almost shooting his nards off in a club perpetuate this thug-life persona, but that is more a rarity and a persona than an indication of significant violent tendencies of athletes.

Apart from violence, there does appear to be real evidence that pro athletes attempt to break the rules and feel it is their right to do so. First off, successful athletes engage in more self-deception than the rest of us; or, in other words, they are more likely to deny the more embarrassing or unsavory aspects of themselves. For example, research has shown that the swimmers who deny more unsavory or negative characteristics of themselves (as measured on a questionnaire) are more likely to perform better than those who are not. For an enjoyable more thorough description of this, the always-brilliant WNYC show Radiolab discusses this phenomenon. In essence, successful competitors need to believe that they are always going to win, and in order to believe that truly, one must really believe he/she is infallible or more special than others. If that weren’t the case, confidence would be shattered.

The phenomenon of the all-powerful athlete does not exist in a vacuum — we contribute to this problem by endorsing it. From an early age, great athletes get the message that they really are more special or can get away with breaking the rules. When I was a wee lad undergrad, I knew someone who was caught drinking underage in the dorm; he was caught with several swimmers, and he was the one non-athlete. Lo and behold, when punishments were handed down, my friend was sentenced to campus public service, while each swimmer was allowed to just swim away scot free doing the backstroke and whistling dixie. And this was at a school that prides itself on high standards for its athletes. No wonder athletes think they can get away with everything; we grant that validation.

Why we as a society continue to allow ourselves to be deceived is another question. Tragically, we are a people that hopes for superheroes and then tries to build them, but the sad truth is that they just don’t exist.

If you, dear reader, have a question you’d like to be considered, send me a message at drhooberman@gmail.com.

The post Are Athletes More Likely to Commit Violent Crimes? Short Answer: No appeared first on HyperVocal.

Happy Resolution Week!

If you’re unfamiliar with this non-Hallmark Holiday, it’s the week following the new year in which resolutions are stridently followed.

I witnessed this last year when I went to my local gym on January 2, only to find that I had to wait in line at my favorite machines behind several new faces with thick waistlines and too-tight spandex.

Thankfully, this phenomenon lasted no more than 3 days.

(image via Steve T. Conroy; smoking guy photo via Astragony)

If you are like most people, I am sorry to say that your New Year’s Resolution will likely fall on its portly rump faster than you can say “partially hydrogenated vegetable oil.” In fact, some estimates suggest that at least 80 percent of resolutions will fail within six weeks.

While there is something to be said about using the natural start of a year to delineate a personal change — “out with the old, in with the new” — I have never been a fan of these resolutions. I see the Resolution as the snake oil of behavioral change, offering the promise of rejuvenated health and happiness with the gulp of midnight champagne. In reality, it is just a line in the sand that does nothing to actually effect change beyond the magical belief that a turn of the calendar actually effects human betterment.

This is the myth of change; that it is easy to alter staid patterns of behavior. Sadly, change is hard, and it takes internal effort and motivation.

Basically, it sucks.

In the psychotherapeutic setting, I have often sat across from a new patient who is primarily interested in a quick fix or magical pill that will relieve all of his or her ills. Just recently, a patient who was feeling despondent and fatigued, and who is concurrently on antidepressant medication, told me that he was seriously considering taking testosterone shots to give him a boost of energy. This seemed to him a better solution than considering the psychological underpinnings to his distress.

Personally, the idea of looking like a roided-out freak seems like it would offset any positive quality from juicing up.

Nonetheless, you can’t blame people for wanting this, since it seems like there is too often a new drug or method to lose weight, or commercial about Jimmy Johnson’s boner size, all of which attempt to sidestep or deny that people generally just feel bad about themselves or their current life conditions.

To me, these erection drugs and other health miracles are deflating (pun intended). For better or for worse, humans are complex. I will say it is for the better, as wouldn’t life be dull if we were simple machines that were easy to figure out? As a psychotherapist, I certainly see people change, but it is a process — a process of getting to understand oneself, how and why one reacts in certain ways and in certain situations, and then begin to take control or gain autonomy over our feelings and behaviors. This often takes months, if not years. Even though we hate aspects of ourselves, they are still part of us, and it is not so easy to say goodbye to aspects of our internalized selves, good and bad.

Don’t get me wrong: Setting goals is a good thing. I would never discourage people from setting them. If somebody proclaimed to me “2011 2012 2013 is the year I want to lose 100 pounds,” I would support them wholeheartedly. I would also talk about strategies, possible barriers, and most importantly, I’d examine what meaning their eating and weight has for them. They’re called “comfort foods” for a reason.

Further, there are different types of resolutions. Saying, for example, that you will start recycling your newspapers this year is much different than saying you will find a spouse and start a family. One is much more emotionally laden (I know, throwing away newspapers can be sad!).

So go ahead, make your resolution — but be aware of all that goes into it. The turn of the calendar will not necessarily remove your neurotic impulses and create more internal motivation. The best suggestion I can make for a New Year’s Resolution that will help you get on the right track is this: Resolve to reflect on yourself and your life more than one time at the end of the year when the champagne is flowing.

Josh Hooberman, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist who keeps a private psychotherapy practice. He probably thinks you’re crazy.

MORE FROM DOC HOOBS:
• Bloodlust in America: Sex and Violence are Comfortable Bedfellows
• The Continuum of Crazy: When Is The Line Crossed?
• I Was New to New York When the World Exploded

The post Why Your New Year’s Resolution Will Probably Fail … Again appeared first on HyperVocal.

Happy Resolution Week!

If you’re unfamiliar with this non-Hallmark Holiday, it’s the week following the new year, in which resolutions are stridently followed. I witnessed this last year when I went to my local gym on January 2nd, only to find that I had to wait in line at my favorite machines behind several new faces with thick waistlines and too-tight spandex. Thankfully, this phenomenon lasted no more than 3 days.

If you are like most people, I am sorry to say that your New Year’s Resolutions will likely fall on its portly rump faster than you can say “partially hydrogenated vegetable oil.” In fact, some estimates suggest that at least 80 percent of resolutions will fail within six weeks.

While there is something to be said about using the natural start of a year to delineate a personal change — “out with the old, in with the new” — I have never been a fan of these resolutions. I see the Resolution as the snake oil of behavioral change, offering the promise of rejuvenated health and happiness with the gulp of midnight champagne. In reality, it is just a line in the sand that does nothing to actually effect change beyond the magical belief that a turn of the calendar actually effects human betterment.

This is the myth of change; that it is easy to alter staid patterns of behavior. Sadly, change is hard, and it takes internal effort and motivation. Basically, it sucks.

In the psychotherapeutic setting, I have often sat across from a new patient who is primarily interested in a quick fix or magical pill that will relieve all of his or her ills. Just recently, a patient who was feeling despondent and fatigued, and who is concurrently on antidepressant medication, told me that he was seriously considering taking testosterone shots to give him a boost of energy. This seemed to him a better solution than considering the psychological underpinnings to his distress. Personally, the idea of looking like a roided-out freak seems like it would offset any positive quality from juicing up.

Nonetheless, you can’t blame people for wanting this, since it seems like there is too often a new drug or method to lose weight, or commercial about Jimmy Johnson’s boner size, all of which attempt to sidestep or deny that people generally just feel bad about themselves or their current life conditions.

To me, these erection drugs and other health miracles are deflating (pun intended). For better or for worse, humans are complex. I will say it is for the better, as wouldn’t life be dull if we were simple machines that were easy to figure out? As a psychotherapist, I certainly see people change, but it is a process — a process of getting to understand oneself, how and why one reacts in certain ways and in certain situations, and then begin to take control or gain autonomy over our feelings and behaviors. This often takes months, if not years. Even though we hate aspects of ourselves, they are still part of us, and it is not so easy to say goodbye to aspects of our internalized selves, good and bad.

Don’t get me wrong: Setting goals is a good thing. I would never discourage people from setting them. If somebody proclaimed to me “2011 2012 is the year I want to lose 100 pounds,” I would support them wholeheartedly. I would also talk about strategies, possible barriers, and most importantly, I’d examine what meaning their eating and weight has for them. They’re called “comfort foods” for a reason.

Furthermore, there are different types of resolutions. Saying, for example, that you will start recycling your newspapers this year is much different than saying you will find a spouse and start a family in the coming year. One is much more emotionally laden (I know, throwing away newspapers can be sad!).

So go ahead, make your resolution — but be aware of all that goes into it. The turn of the calendar will not necessarily remove your neurotic impulses and create more internal motivation. The best suggestion I can make for a New Year’s Resolution that will help you get on the right track is this: Resolve to reflect on yourself and your life more than one time at the end of the year when the champagne is flowing.

Josh Hooberman, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist who works at a large Manhattan hospital and keeps a small private psychotherapy practice. He probably thinks you’re crazy.

(image via Steve T. Conroy; smoking guy photo via Astragony)

The post Ten Bucks Says Your New Year’s Resolution Will Fail appeared first on HyperVocal.

The Halloween theme was a little different at the law firm offices of Steven J. Baum last year, according to a must-read op-ed by New York Times columnist Joe Nocera. The “foreclosure mill” firm, which represents all the big mortgage lenders like Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo, throws an annual costume party in the office where employees dress up at work.

A former employee sent some photos of last year’s party to Nocera. Why? “Because they showed an appalling lack of compassion toward the homeowners — invariably poor and down on their luck — that the Baum firm had brought foreclosure proceedings against,” the employee told him. They’re dressed as homeless people, as squatters, as advocates fighting against evictions of Baum’s clients.

The psychology behind these absurdly insensitive costumes is interesting, and open to all kinds of interpretation. Are these employees simply evil bastards who enjoy kicking people when they’re down? Or perhaps, on a less accusatory note, they were just dehumanizing their work, separating themselves from jobs they’re not particularly fond of off the clock. And does the fact that this was a private party make them look better (less offensive than in public) or worse (it’s more heartless in private)?

That’s for everyone to decide on their own. But the revelation in Saturday’s Times led us to dig up a great column from last October on the psychology of Halloween costumes. In it clinical psychologist Dr. Joshua Hooberman breaks down every child’s favorite holiday: Canadian Thanksgiving Halloween.

For Hooberman, despite the costumed nature of this holiday, Halloween is actually one of the few times in which we get full view of our fellow beings’ wild, untamed, and most truthful sides of their psyches.

——-

Whoa, check out the Ids on that one!

Halloween is the one day where it is completely acceptable to wear outrageous outfits and masks and other such get-ups. For little girls they get to be a princess, for young women it’s a slutty “whatever.”

In anticipation of this excuse-of-a-day-to-wear-cleavage-exposing-outfits, I wanted to look at what is really revealed by the masks that are worn, both on Oct. 31 and otherwise. Despite the costumed nature of this holiday, I believe Halloween is actually one of the few times in which we get full view of our fellow beings’ wild, untamed, and most truthful sides of their psyches.

Most days of the year, adults show their real faces and dress respectably with clothes that cover naughty bits in an attempt to portray themselves as competent and professional individuals (I generalize here, as Lady Gaga is an outlier in this equation). We probably believe that this is our true selves that we are exhibiting to the world, as this is the identity that we have chosen for ourselves and is the daily life that we live. In most cases, however, we have to wear at least some sort of mask to keep this so-called reality intact.

For over a century, psychologists and psychiatrists have been writing about this true self/false self dichotomy. You’ve all heard of the id, right? It’s the deepest seat of our most primal urges and seething impulses that seeks to dispel its energy on anything and everything. Imagine your neighbor’s dog humping your leg with reckless abandon. Of course, we humans cannot go along humping any old leg at any old time. Societal rules and regulations force us to dampen those. We must compromise, so we present a more decent self to the world; in other words, we all must wear a bit of a mask.

Hopefully this compromise works out for the best, and we are able to get some of our urges met in reasonable and mature way.

The problems occur for those people who are so in denial of their urges for fear that they are unacceptable to the world, that they exhibit a false personality, which is almost the opposite of their deep desires. This is the true sense of the word: Hypocrite.

A prime example of this is a conservative congressman who spits venom about the evils of homosexuality, and then is found to have an active gay sex life in airport public bathrooms. Clearly, the facade is a reaction to the discomfort of these urges. It’s quite sad, really, as this person is forced to live an unreal and false life.

Halloween is a time for adults to let that id out. For kids, it’s different. It’s still generally a time where they get to experiment with different identities, replicate their heroes, etc. Once childhood is over, however, it is expected that we no longer need to experiment with our identities.

Adult/adolescent Halloween costumes are different then kids’, as Jack-o’-lanterns and Spider-man are supplanted by demon baby figurines and pervy bananas.

Expressing a healthy sex drive is clearly, well, healthy. But we live in a culture of dichotomies and inconsistencies, where sex is known to sell, but the puritanical upbringings of our country cause us to wag or fingers at displays of sexuality that poke through the mainstream (for examples of this, please refer to the uproars surrounding Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction and the recent Weinergate scandal). Halloween, it appears, allows adults to turn convention on its head, throw off the constraints of conscience, and get down and dirty.

So, as Halloween approaches this year, think about what party you’re going to, why you have chosen to dress up as Snooki, and what desire this is really satisfying.

Josh Hooberman, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist who works at a large Manhattan hospital and keeps a small private psychotherapy practice. He probably thinks you’re crazy.

The post Halloween Psychology: Costume Revelations, Both Slutty and Mean appeared first on HyperVocal.

Here is my such narrative: I was walking to work when I heard the first plane hit the north tower.

It sounded like a truck hitting a pothole, only exponentially magnified. I had just gotten off the subway, heading east on Fulton Street with my back towards the World Trade Center; my office was about 400 yards away from there. Turning around, all that was visible was paper floating to the ground and a smallish plume of smoke. Nobody on the street knew what had happened; one gentleman said a private Cessna plane had crashed, others said it was perhaps another bomb like the 1993 explosion. People were jumping into convenience and tourism shops that lined Fulton, buying disposable cameras. A couple of fire trucks sped by, clearly not knowing they were most likely on their final ride. Not knowing what was what, I headed to work to acquire more info.

I had moved to New York City two months prior to the September 11th attacks in 2001. Having graduated from college in June of that year, I had moved to New York from the Midwest to “take a year and explore the big city” before applying to graduate schools for psychology. I immediately started my job working for a non-profit organization providing vocational counseling for learning- and developmentally disabled adults; it sounds a lot nobler than it was.

On September 10th, I had been “promoted” to a new position as an instructor of one of the classrooms of 30 students. My boss, the director of the organization, a tiny no-nonsense Chinese woman named Mrs. Wong, walked me to the new classroom, explaining that although I didn’t make much of a salary, my new digs sported a “million-dollar view.” And that it did. I had the corner room, and the two corner walls were all windows, floor to ceiling. The Brooklyn Bridge on one side, the Twin Towers out the other.

Walking into work on the 11th, there was no clear idea about what had happened. I was told to calm my class down and wait for more info. “Mr. H, I heard it was a bomb!” “Mr. H. what do you think it was?” I told everyone to sit down, and then suddenly BOOM. Out my window came the huge fireball from the second crash. We scrambled out the building. I found myself walking east with three colleagues towards the South Street Seaport. About halfway to the river, we stopped and stared at the building as it burned, mesmerized by the fire and smoke. We only knew that two planes had hit. A colleague of mine stated: “Imagine what those people in the building are thinking: I guess this is it, (looks at her watch for the date), September 11th, this is the end of my life.” Those words are still chilling to me.

My group and I finally gained our senses and started to walk towards the river, but then suddenly a noise, like that of a nose-diving plane. And that’s exactly what I thought; another plane was coming. To my back, a large group of people were running towards me, and behind them, a large plume of smoke enveloped the ground. A spike of adrenaline, and I was running as well. A thin cloud of smoke or ash covered me, but it was clear that I was in no real danger. I started the long walk up the East River with my three colleagues and thousands of others. A few guys on lawn chairs were sitting along the path uptown holding radios, providing updates. Apparently this was a terrorist attack.

Some guy named bin Laden.

There were other planes in Washington. A few businessmen covered head-to-toe with ash wearing thousand-yard stares walked past me; I couldn’t fathom what had happened to them. We cut to 1st Ave and passed Bellevue Hospital, where there was a line down the block for people wanting to donate blood. I stood in line at a pay phone and called my roommate to try to get in contact with my parents, as I knew that had a limited sense of where my office was in relation to the attack.  

After a few hours, I reached home, sat down, drank a beer. And then the sitting began for two weeks, glued to the television. Slowly the details came, and with it a bout of depression, then a brief bout of patriotism. Both passed. I continued to replay the events over in my head. I felt that I needed to remember it, to feel connected to it. I latched on to the fact that I was there, in what I am sure was a partial grappling with my own young adulthood selfhood search.

Going back to the initial query about the specific change or impact this has on someone.  A supervisor once told me in working with PTSD patients, that the trauma becomes a filter through which one now views his life. But was this a trauma? I am thinking not.

It is difficult to think about how my life would be different if this hadn’t happened. My current job wouldn’t exist, that I am sure of (I work in suicide prevention with military vets). I’m sure the answer of change is different for each person and his/her level of closeness to the event itself. Perhaps it creates the opportunity to examine ourselves in the context of hardship. And in the case of this country, to wonder how and in what manner our narrative as a society has shifted since that day 10 years ago.

Josh Hooberman, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist who works at a large Manhattan hospital and keeps a small private psychotherapy practice. He probably thinks you’re crazy. Read his HV archive here.

MORE FROM DR. HOOBS:

–Bloodlust in America: Sex and Violence are Comfortable Bedfellows
–The Continuum of Crazy: When Is The Line Crossed?

The post I Was New to New York When the World Exploded appeared first on HyperVocal.

But can we please stop all this frenzied BS celebrating killing!

Perhaps I am in the minority, but the orgiastic celebration over the death of a man, as horrid as he may be, leaves me with an acrid taste. Although I see the symbolic rationale for celebrating his death, the calls for pictures of his dead body and the sensationalist media coverage of every last detail has become too much.

To what end does this killing really satisfy? May 4th’s NY Times reports poll findings that generally people do not feel more safe in the short term as a result, but they do feel a sense of closure to 9/11. Does it end the current wars or make people more secure? It would appear that it does not. To me, it signifies a troubling and pervasive bloodlust.

Rather than discussing the merits or specifics of the killing of Osama bin Laden, this post will focus on the issue of bloodlust in general.

Let us first consider the word: Bloodlust. Lust is a desire, craving, or yearning for something, often, if not usually, used to describe a sexual desire. For example, perhaps I lust for Jessica Rabbit (don’t judge!), while others may lust for a pair of six inch stilleto heels.

I think this sexual element of bloodshed and violence is essential for us to understand its rampant nature. Sex and violence are intertwined; psychiatric theorists for at least the last century have revisited this natural, dichotomous relationship over and again. Freud, for example, stated that along with the sexual drive (libido) was a drive towards aggression and destruction. Although Freud’s and others’ theories have gone through various revisions, the sex/violence theme continues to arise (or better yet, erect). Take for example this contemporary example from the movie A History of Violence (NSFW).

To understand why we desire to continue to start wars and wage violence and kill others, I believe, can only be understand when placed alongside our sexual impulses. For example, in his book On Killing (a must-read for those working with combat vets), Lt. Col. Dave Grossman explicates this sex/killing linkage in warfare as follows: “Many men who have carried and fired a gun – especially a full automatic weapon – must confess in their heard that the power and pleasure of explosively spewing a stream of bullets is akin to the emotions felt when explosively spewing a stream of semen.”

So, ahem, I think that quote cuts right to the core of what it means to have bloodlust. The urge is primitive and strong. And in our particular country, where puritanical prohibitions on sex still float in the ether, our outward expression of aggression and violence is quite possibly an expression of repressed sexuality.

So perhaps we are a violent people as a whole, and that Thomas Hobbes was correct that the state of nature is the state of war. However, acting upon that natural state, leads us down a road to a scary dystopia. And I fear that is where these media frenzies around assasinations and terrorists can lead.  

Luckily, we are capable of civilization, and of recognizing these urges and not necessarily acting upon them. In fact, part of our brains (the neocortex) sets us apart from animals in this way. Much mental health treatment focuses on teaching us recognizing our urges, considering them, and then choosing how to act; like resisting the cravings for ex-smokers to have a cigarette.

Perhaps it is best to think of war and violence in this way: It is a drug that induces cravings that we must recognize and choose to divert away from.

In order for us to be a safer and saner collection of people, we need to take a step back and think critically about our actions and motivations before destroying ourselves. The Running Man was a fun movie (what Governator movie isn’t?), but I for one do not want to live it.

Josh Hooberman, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist who works at a large Manhattan hospital and keeps a small private psychotherapy practice. He probably thinks you’re crazy. Read his HV archive here.

The post Bloodlust in America: Sex and Violence are Comfortable Bedfellows appeared first on HyperVocal.

Every December at my hospital, without fail, a colleague will aver that we must be attuned to increase suicide risk during the holidays. As a suicidologist (yes, that is a word), it’s my duty to dispel the myth of holiday-suicide-increases; suicides are, in fact, highest in the spring and summer months. What ensues is usually a shocked, “hubbub, hubbub” moment amongst my colleagues.

It is true. Recent reports indicate that suicide rates are the highest between the months of April and July. Furthermore, suicide rates are actually lowest nationally during the holiday season, in the months of November and December. I can verify a consistent pattern in my facility of employ for the past few years.

But this clearly defies commonly held opinion — so why is this the case? To be honest, there is no definitive answer to this spring-time suicide increase. However, I will attempt to provide an explanation, based partially on my own opinion and on the current theories.

First, let’s examine the lower rates during the holidays. Perhaps the image of George Bailey preparing to leap to his doom has created an iconic image of suicides around the holidays. I mean, we all certainly know that the holidays can suck, resulting in family strife and discord, or at least severe boredom on Christmas day (am I right, Jewish people?). The holiday blues and an increase in feeling depressed can certainly occur, but oddly that does not result in increased suicide.

But why not? If we know that suicide is related to depression, then why wouldn’t it also increase if the holidays are so stressful? The symptomatology of severe depression can perhaps shed some light. Bodily changes (termed neurovegetative symptoms) can occur in severe depression; this includes lack of energy and lack of motivation. For people who are SO depressed, they may lack energy to do anything, including come up with a plan and actually engage in a suicidal act.

We seem to focus on holiday stress, but holidays are in fact a time when people can get extra support from others, families or otherwise. Support is one of the best protective factors against suicide, and perhaps people are indeed getting together with others, as is intended by the holiday season. Also, that depressed, homeless, indigent person will still be depressed, homeless, and indigent when the holidays are over…only there is no Salvation Army Santa Claus making an extra effort to help him.

Okay, so why does suicide necessarily increase in April, as opposed to, say, October? Are people just upset that the month has a cheerleader’s name? Probably not. One explanation is the flip side of the lack-of-energy description provided above. When the weather gets better and there is more light, energy may naturally increase. The depressed person who was too down to even motivate to kill him/herself, may now have enough energy to get this done.

Another explanation could be related to people’s expectations that things that things will automatically improve in the warmer, sunnier months. As activities increase during the spring and summer and the world comes alive, depressed people may still notice they are depressed. I could potentially see someone saying, “Well, if I’m still depressed around all this life and activity when I should be happier, then I may never get better,” leading to more hopelessness.

So what is the point of all of this? What does it matter? Well, first off, I believe we need to do a better job of being aware of mental health problems or concerns all the time, not just when it is presented to us in a packaged form.

Now for my didactic moment: Be aware of yourself and friends and family members who may be struggling and to help them get help if they need it. Be mindful of changes. Encourage treatment. Mental health treatment is everyone’s right, and it can indeed increase one’s sense of help in the future.

As my good friend Spock says, live long and prosper. Or, if you prefer Mork, Nanu Nanu!

Here’s the most important part: If you or someone you know are in crisis, you can always call the national lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK (8255).

Josh Hooberman, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist who works at a large Manhattan hospital and keeps a small private psychotherapy practice. He probably thinks you’re crazy. Read his HV archive here.

The post Suicide Season Starts Now: Why April Really is the Cruelest Month appeared first on HyperVocal.

In particular, I have been pondering the process of devolution from sanity to insanity: Where is the line drawn? Is there a continuum of crazy, if you will, or if there’s an actual line that needs to be crossed for one to reach that category? Is the (Tucson shooter) Jared Lee Loughner’s paranoia about the currency and magical beliefs in mind control that different than the Tea Party birthers or the 9/11 conspiracy theorists? Well, in short, yes. However, in some cases, the demarcation becomes much blurrier.

Take, for example, a recent elderly gentleman I saw on an inpatient psychiatric unit who was hearing “the voice of the church” giving him advice on his life following a “religious awakening” at his church four years ago. He denied hearing voices or having such odd experiences prior to this.

As it turns out, the gentleman was more disorganized than first glance would indicate, worrying that the FBI was also tracking him. Is it not possible, however, that what appears to a doctor as crazy thinking is completely within the realm of possibility to a deeply religious person? Perhaps it is…or perhaps we are all apt to have moments or modes of thinking that are somewhat crazy.

Religious material is not uncommon to hear in psychotic symptoms, but it begs the question as to what are overvalued ideals vs. legitimate breaks from reality. In a thought that will surely be seen as blasphemous by many, I wonder if ancient biblical figures who were responding to the voice of god were not in actuality just a few lambs short of a manger. Comedian Marc Maron has a great bit on this very subject of “talking to God” (see here).

In speaking of “madness,” I am particularly speaking of psychosis; a breaking from reality. There are many types of psychotic symptoms, including hallucinations, bizarre delusions (beliefs about the world or the self that are unreal), and illogical thoughts. Psychosis can occur as a result of many different disorders, including Schizophrenia, depression and bipolar disorder, brain disorders, and substance abuse. Although people have charted the phenomenology of these disorders for the past century at least, we are still unclear exactly on why this happens or what mechanisms are involved.

In Schizophrenia, for example, there are several theories as to why this occurs, both biological and psychologically. Biologically, one theory is that connections between networks in the brain have been “excessively pruned,” meaning associations between parts of the mind are not strong as we would normally expect. It is like pruning in gardening, except in the case of Schizophrenics, the gardener is Carl Spackler from Caddyshack.

Some psychological theories explain that a Schizophrenic person feels threatened by the external world  and forms an internal world of fantasy, which slowly becomes the only world the individual knows, and then becomes this person’s idiosyncratic, and psychotic, reality.

Clearly, Schizophrenia is a distinct category that can indicate a line has been crossed. But when is it less clear? Let’s take paranoid delusions as an example. This encompasses a belief system that somebody or something is attempting to harm you, when in actuality that is not the case. In Schizophrenia, an example is the government has implanted a chip in one’s brain and is controlling him.

Or Natalie Portman’s character in Black Swan, who actually believes something malicious is happening to her body, like turning to a swan.

How do we categorize, however, the person who believes that our president is going to enact the use of “death panels” to Medicare standard practice? Or the person who starts speaking in tongues in a belief that god is speaking through her? In some eyes these are paranoid beliefs, or at least not based on reality, but to a great proportion of the population this is just business as usual.

To answer the original question of when the line is crossed to insanity, there are some guidelines. For example, the level of bizarreness indicates the level of psychosis. Although religiosity may be bizarre to some, it is completely logical to a large majority. Secondly, the number of symptoms may give an indication of this line; one paranoid thought that people are talking about you is not enough, but hearing and seeing things ups the ante.

Nevertheless, the point is that there is some continuum and subjectivity involved. And under enough stress, overvalued ideals can become dangerous both to the individual person and society at large, as they can indicate a break from reality. Hopefully, we can hold a majority position of logic in our society to keep this potential for delusion in check, so as not to become a psychotic country.

Josh Hooberman, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist who works at a large Manhattan hospital and keeps a small private psychotherapy practice. He probably thinks you’re crazy. Read his HV archive here.

The post The Continuum of Crazy: When Is The Line Crossed? appeared first on HyperVocal.

Happy Resolution Week!

If you’re unfamiliar with this non-Hallmark Holiday, it’s the week following the new year, in which resolutions are stridently followed. I witnessed this last year when I went to my local gym on January 2nd, only to find that I had to wait in line at my favorite machines behind several new faces with thick waistlines and too-tight spandex. Thankfully, this phenomenon lasted no more than 3 days.

If you are like most people, I am sorry to say that your New Year’s Resolutions will likely fall on its portly rump faster than you can say “partially hydrogenated vegetable oil.” In fact, some estimates suggest that at least 80 percent of resolutions will fail within six weeks.

While there is something to be said about using the natural start of a year to delineate a personal change — “out with the old, in with the new” — I have never been a fan of these resolutions. To me, the New Year’s Resolution is the snake oil of behavioral change, offering the promise of rejuvenated health and happiness with the gulp of midnight champagne. In reality, it is just a line in the sand that does nothing to actually effect change beyond the magical belief that a turn of the calendar actually effects human betterment.

This is the myth of change; that it is easy to alter staid patterns of behavior. Sadly, change is hard, and it takes internal effort and motivation. Basically, it sucks.

In the psychotherapeutic setting, I have often sat across from a new patient who is primarily interested in a quick fix or magical pill that will relieve all of his or her ills. Just recently, a patient who was feeling despondent and fatigued, and who is concurrently on antidepressant medication, told me that he was seriously considering taking testosterone shots to give him a boost of energy. This seemed to him a better solution than considering the psychological underpinnings to his distress. Personally, the idea of looking like a roided-out freak seems like it would offset any positive quality from juicing up.

Nonetheless, you can’t blame people for wanting this, since really, it seems like there is all-too-often a new drug or method to lose weight or commercial about Jimmy Johnson’s boner size, all of which attempt to sidestep or deny that people generally just feel bad about themselves or their current life conditions.

To me, these erection drugs and other health miracles are deflating (pun intended). For better or for worse, humans are complex. I will say it is for the better, as wouldn’t life be dull if we were simple machines that were easy to figure out? As a psychotherapist, I certainly see people change, but it is a process — a process of getting to understand oneself, how and why one reacts in certain ways and in certain situations, and then begin to take control or gain autonomy over our feelings and behaviors. This often takes months, if not years. Even though we hate aspects of ourselves, they are still part of us, and it is not so easy to say goodbye to aspects of our internalized selves, good and bad.

Don’t get me wrong: Setting goals is a good thing and I would never discourage people from setting them. If somebody proclaimed to me “2011 is the year I want to lose 100 pounds,” I would support him/her wholeheartedly. I would also talk about strategies, possible barriers, and most importantly, I’d examine what meaning their eating and weight has for them. They’re called “comfort foods” for a reason.

Furthermore, there are different types of resolutions. Saying, for example, that you will start recycling your newspapers this year is much different than saying you will find a spouse and start a family in the coming year. One is much more emotionally laden (I know, throwing away newspapers can be sad!).

In short, go ahead, make your resolution! But be aware of all that goes into it. The turn of the calendar will not necessarily remove your neurotic impulses and create more internal motivation. The best suggestion I can make for a New Year’s Resolution that will help you get on the right track is this: Resolve to reflect on yourself and your life more than one time at the end of the year when Snooki’s in a giant ball.

Josh Hooberman, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist who works at a large Manhattan hospital and keeps a small private psychotherapy practice. He probably thinks you’re crazy.

The post Ten Bucks Says Your New Year’s Resolution Will Fail appeared first on HyperVocal.

Teen suicide has been a hot, albeit sad, topic over the past few months. The national media picked up on the seeming rash of teenage suicides after Rutgers student Tyler Clementi jumped to his death in an incident related to gay-webcam-bullying.

Although horrifying and shocking, this clustering of related suicides is not so surprising, as it is consistent with the phenomenon known as “suicide contagion.” Anyone from the X/Y generations might recognize this as the Martha Dumptruck effect.

This contagion is exactly what it sounds like. In the same way that one chicken-pock-addled tot can infect a whole Chucky Cheese ball-pit full of kids, the idea of killing oneself unfortunately becomes infectious in others, particular teens.

Unfortunately, apart from the epidemiological evidence, that yes, this contagion does exist, little research explains what is going on.

So, in turn, here are a few thoughts for consideration. The teenage mind is a good place to start: It is certainly more advanced than a young child’s, but by no means mature. Turmoil and lability are the hallmarks of adolescence, and, while battling through this is a necessary developmental stage, that shit is confusing (pardon my clinical jargon). I don’t often hear people fondly reminiscing about their pimply days that revolved around whether they would have to shower after gym class or whether they would get invited to sit at the cool-kids table at lunch.

Although it is easy to jest about such conflicts many years removed, any adolescent can tell you that it feels like the end of the world. Of course it does, with hormones raging and lives and bodies changing on a daily, if not hourly, basis. Furthermore, the teenage brain is both extremely perceptive and impressionable…oh yeah, and dangerously impulsive.

Enter the media and contagion. This may surprise some, but peddlers of news stories are superb hockers of sensationalism. Yes, it’s true! I would say that most news stories probably accurately describe suicide as such: a tragedy. However, the fact that it is a “story” adds a wrinkle of difficulty.

In most cases of suicide, the news will attempt to find the cause and effect, to make the story readable and interesting. A story has an exposition, an arc and finally, a conclusion, which unfortunately in these cases, is the self-destruction of a young person.

This “tragic story” often romanticizes the whole event, not focusing on the brutality of the means of death or even the true events of the suicide. For a beautiful description of romanticized suicide, please read this story about the Golden Gate Bridge. Despite the known effectiveness of barriers in preventing suicide, people advocated against them on the bridge because of the aesthetic of the bridge and the romantic idea that they could dissolve in the ether after their fatal jump (the reality is violent, brutal, and painful).

I understand the romanticism of death, as we all must deny death to a certain extent so that we can live our lives without pant-pissing anxiety of our mortality. Sadly, however, many teens may not recognize the finality of the act. In my work with individuals who have survived a suicide attempt, the vast majority have later come to regret that earlier decision and have been glad at a chance to continue their lives once that immediate crisis has passed.

As such, the ultimate decision to take one’s life, even if it has been considered in the past, is usually an impulsive one. And impulsivity is a problem of frontal lobe dysfunction, which, lo and behold, is not fully formed until one is in one’s 20s. This predisposition makes it neurologically more difficult for kids and teens to withstand stress in a healthy manner.

Let’s put this together. We know that teens are impressionable and influenced by the actions of others. Particularly, teens are quick to identify those like them. So, troubled/bullied Teen A hears a story in the news about a likewise troubled/bullied Teen B who also has killed himself. Teen A may see this as a legitimate way out of his life as well, and impulsively follow suit. Teen A may not see that the crisis is not always going to be there, but that hope does exist for things to improve; messages like “It Get’s Better” are essential messages in the public forum.

This is not to say that news should stop reporting on suicide however, but if they do, it should be done responsibly to reduce contagion. Report the facts, reduce sensationalization, and also include a message that suicide is often related to longer standing psychiatric conditions.

Furthermore, discussions of suicide should ALWAYS include resources for help, such as the national suicide hotline 1-800-273-8255 (TALK) or the It Gets Better Project.

Josh Hooberman, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist who works at a large Manhattan hospital and keeps a small private psychotherapy practice. He probably thinks you’re crazy.

The post Teenage Suicide: The Martha Dumptruck Effect appeared first on HyperVocal.

With the recent passing (and subsequent gas-passing) of Thanksgiving, the holiday season is firmly upon us. For many, that means traveling over proverbial rivers and through metaphorical woods to families and childhood homes. Despite all the cheer and good will, we are all probably too familiar with the cliche of family strife waiting under the Christmas Tree, Menorah, or Kwanzaa unity cup.

In other words, it is a cliche that spans cultures; Hollywood has exploited this shtick to the max (see Example A here, or Example B  here). Clearly the idea of family-holiday-weekend-gone wrong is familiar enough to inspire formulaic schmaltz.

So, what’s the deal? Can’t we all get along? The answer, quite simply, is probably not. These conflicts are a compulsion; we seem to play our roles from childhood that we probably are least interested in reprising. Many times have I found myself, a professional psychologist who has lived on his own for many years, torturing my own, equally professional, older sister with a finger in front of the face; it’s our ongoing Clarissa/Ferguson moment. Why does this happen?

First of all, in the case of family conflict, the adage “out of sight, out of mind” does not necessarily apply. People often think that leaving a situation will automatically improve it. This might be the case, as in an abusive relationship, when it is essential to get away. However, flying the nest is not so simple; your father is still going to the bathroom with the door open, even though you’re not there to be ashamed by it. And, sorry to say, but those essential family conflicts and dynamics follow us along, and in fact, we unknowingly carry them with us. An examination of our development psychology can elucidate us.

I wrote in an earlier post about integrating the nourishment of our caregivers so that we can grow and rely upon ourselves. This is what happens in childhood development: We create representations of our parents or important adult figures in our minds to give us a sense of self, of direction, morality, etc. These are internal models in our minds of who we are, who are family members are, and the role that we play between these parts; like a schematic blueprint of ourselves in relation to others. That blueprint is first provided for us externally by our parents, then becomes integrated as a part of our own selves.

Like Tootie learned on The Facts of Life, however, you take the good with the bad. Think of those things that annoy you about your parents. Now, think of whether you carry some of those traits as well. How many times have you or a friend said to yourself, “Oh my god, I’m becoming my mother/father!!!” as you shudder in horror? I’ll bet a few. Along with the love that hopefully you have gained from them and integrated into your being, when you leave home, you also hold on to the aggravating aspects. Often times these are the characteristics of ourselves we are most bothered by. We recognize them as both part of us, but also as from someone else. We get angry at ourselves for having these traits.

Flash forward to the return home. After the warm greetings and egg nog, latkes, ham, whatever, the conflict returns, right where you left it. First of all, it was never resolved to begin with, so those old patterns rise faster than a Turkey thermometer. It is like the physical structure of the home triggers the mental schemata of family roles and positions.

Secondly, those internal aggravating aspects of ourselves that we have grown to hate return to their external place of origin, emanating from that of which they began, i.e., our caregivers. And seeing it externally makes it easier to attack; hence the family argument. For example, your mother’s complaint that the house cleaners probably stole the vacuum just reminds you that you have become judgmental in your maturing age. You recognize that you have internalized this trait, resent it and that from which it came, and the conflict ensues.

In hindsight, perhaps this post should rather be titled: You can’t leave home… ever. Perhaps all we can do is gain a little perspective on it, and have realistic expectations for who we are, and try to be tolerant of others in our families. Hopefully your holiday is filled with more cheer than jeer, and if it’s like my family, hopefully there is lots of booze.

Josh Hooberman, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist who works at a large Manhattan hospital and keeps a small private psychotherapy practice. He probably thinks you’re crazy.

The post You Can’t Go Home Again, But You Can Certainly Try appeared first on HyperVocal.

We unwittingly re-live and repeat in our minds the conflicts and traumas that we have experienced throughout our lives. The goal of psychotherapy often is to facilitate the ability to live a less conflicted and more confident life. At the risk of tooting the therapy-usefulness-horn, this process could be key in investigating societal ills as well, such as the history of racism in this country and the school achievement gap between blacks and whites.

Last week, a group called the Council of the Great City Schools (not sure whether the cities are great or the schools) released a report that stated the achievement gap between American white and black students was immensely wide and extremely bleak. In this report, which apparently disregarded the academic prowess of Carlton Banks, only 12 percent of black eighth graders were reading-proficient in 2009 compared to 44 percent of white eighth graders. And socioeconomic status did not explain the difference, as the gap was still evident regardless of level of poverty.

Hold your horses, all you goose-stepping Nazi enthusiasts. This does not mean that there are legitimate intelligence difference between races. Take, for example, the evidence that black African immigrants out-achieve immigrants from Europe and Asia. Nevertheless, there are clearly differences in achievement at a young age, which is disturbing for our future.

To make matters worse, nobody seems invested in really understanding what is going on. What in our social fabric is causing this to happen? It is too convenient to say that these are just the lingering effects of slavery and oppression, and then leave it at that. If we are to actually affect change, we must do more to understand what is going on. God forbid this becomes a political issue to espouse family values or throw money at education. As any Martha Stewart aspirant will tell you, if you wanna get a stain out of fabric, you can’t just Febreze that sucker and expect it to stop smelling like fish; you gotta get down on your friggin hands and knees, get down to the fibrous roots, and scrub the bejeesus out of it.

Although there are likely many things at work in this racial achievement gap, the theory of “stereotype threat” is a good place to start. Stereotype threat, as proposed by Claude Steele and Joshua Aronson, explained that preconceived notions about a certain racial groups can unconsciously cause members of this group to actually live up to the stereotype; it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. In other words, the stereotype that black people are not as intelligent can actually cause people to do worse in academics if that stereotype is “activated.”

In an example of this, black and white students were given the same test and performance was measured. In one condition, the students were told that their intelligence was being measured; in the other condition, they were told they would not be graded. Guess what happened? Yep, black students did worse when told intelligence was being measured. Furthermore, talking about race stereotypes (e.g., athletics, rap music) before the test also caused this diminished performance. In essence, activating the stereotype can negatively influence individuals to actually fulfill that stereotype. Similar effects have also been shown in the math/science achievement gap between males and females.

Returning to the Great City Schools report, I’m confident that stereotype is at least a part of this. If kids don’t think they are smart, it’s gonna be a lot more difficult for them to actually succeed or believe in their abilities.

It would be misguided, however, to state that removing stereotype would remove the racial divide in achievement, as clearly it does not occur in all cases (see: our president), but it would be a start. One way to start this process is to have open discussions about this as opposed to (bad) dancing that white guilt under the rug and pretending it’s not an issue. Then we will at least have an identifiable enemy rather than allowing children to defeat themselves.

Josh Hooberman, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist who works at a large Manhattan hospital and keeps a small private psychotherapy practice. He probably thinks you’re crazy.

The post The Racial Achievement Gap: Stereotypes and Stupidity appeared first on HyperVocal.

Did you kick the living hell out of an opposing-party member on your way to the polling place? Hopefully that’s a big, resounding “no.” If you did, however, you’re probably a sociopath.

Given the recent level of vitriol we’ve seen, maybe it’s time to examine these rampant stories of extremism and hate driven by partisan politics.

Take a minute and grab a notepad and pencil. Seriously. Without giving it too much thought, write down ten words or short phrases that answer the inquiry: Tell me about yourself. (It’s sort of like a job interview, but you won’t have to come up with a brilliant explanation of how your weakness of being “too conscientious” really is a strength; bravo). I’ll bet my weight in sheckels that your list is a mix of group memberships and personal characteristics.

Personal characteristics would be attributes such as height and weight, hair color, IQ, personal values, etc. Group memberships would be qualities such as your profession, chosen sports team to suffer with, alma mater, whether you prefer Megadeth or Anthrax…oh, yeah, and political party affiliation. Imagine a Wheel of Fortune contestant interview: “Hi, my name is Bonnie! I’m a homemaker from Tulsa! I have a wonderful husband, Bob, and 12 beautiful kids! I love macrame and snuggling up with my cat Toodles!”

Long story short (too late), people define their identities through their social memberships. In the social psychology literature, this is the theory of social identity and self-categorization, first explained by Tajfel and Turner. In their theory, people’s identities are defined by several social identities, which become more or less defined depending on the situation. For example, a woman with short hair, sagging jeans, and a ball cap can remind one of his/her Justin Bieber fandom. Or, perhaps more timely, how your political party becomes salient as you stand in the voting booth (Whigs, represent!).

There’s nothing inherently wrong in this; we all define ourselves by the groups to which we belong. Social identities offer a sense of pride, otherwise we probably would not proudly display them on our lapels. It is comforting to know that we are a part of a group, of something larger than ourselves. Added to that, it is human nature to be attracted to people who hold likeminded viewpoints. How many non-Yanni fans do you think were Live at the Acropolis? Paula Abdul had it all wrong: opposites do not attract.

As times become tough and people feel more stressed than ever, internal senses of pride may be lacking, and people cling to their group identities more tightly to provide that source of pride. Financial hardship and joblessness in today’s economy could certainly heighten this. Comparing Democrats and Republicans, these titles have come to represent ways of living one’s life. Extremism occurs when these categories are held to so strongly, that one cannot necessarily differentiate themselves from the group. The group IS the individual identity. When outgroups exist with differing viewpoints, they can pose a perceived threat to the ingroup, and therefore to the individual; it is a threat to one’s own built reality. Perceived threat to ingroups is theorized as a driving force behind prejudice and discrimination; one attempts to build up his/her own group while demeaning others.

I hear and see a lot of hate between liberals and conservatives these days. There is a palpable crucible of extremism, and people seem less able to stand outside of these groups and make an independent and logical statement. As stated above, social identities can be a good thing, as they give us pride and meaning in life, but once people lose themselves in these identities it could become dangerous.

It is possible to be independent thinking AND have group memberships, but we must use critical thinking and empathy for other viewpoints to maintain such a balance.

Josh Hooberman, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist who works at a large Manhattan hospital and keeps a small private psychotherapy practice. He probably thinks you’re crazy.

The post Why My Politics Are Better Than Yours appeared first on HyperVocal.

It’s the one day where it is completely acceptable to wear outrageous outfits and masks and other such get-ups. For little girls they get to be a princess, for young women it’s a slutty “whatever.”

In anticipation of this excuse-of-a-day-to-wear-cleavage-exposing-outfits, I wanted to look at what is really revealed by the masks that are worn, both on Oct. 31 and otherwise. Despite the costumed nature of this holiday, I believe Halloween is actually one of the few times in which we get full view of our fellow beings’ wild, untamed, and most truthful sides of their psyches.

Most days of the year, adults show their real faces and dress respectably with clothes that cover  naughty bits in an attempt to portray themselves as competent and professional individuals (I generalize here, as Lady Gaga is an outlier in this equation). We probably believe that this is our true selves that we are exhibiting to the world, as this is the identity that we have chosen for ourselves and is the daily life that we live. However, in most cases we have to wear at least some sort of mask to keep this so-called-reality intact.

For over a century, psychologists and psychiatrists have been writing about this true self/false self dichotomy. You’ve all heard of the id, right? It’s the deepest seat of our most primal urges and seething impulses that seeks to dispel its energy on anything and everything. Imagine your neighbor’s dog humping your leg with reckless abandon. Of course, we humans cannot go along humping any old leg at any old time. Societal rules and regulations force us to dampen those. We must compromise, so we present a more decent self to the world; in other words, we all must wear a bit of a mask. Hopefully this compromise works out for the best, and we are able to get some of our urges met in reasonable and mature way.

The problems occurs for those people who are so in denial of their urges for fear that they are unacceptable to the world, that they exhibit a false personality, which is almost the opposite of their deep desires. This is the true sense of the word: Hypocrite. A prime example of this is a conservative congressman who spits venom about the evils of homosexuality, and then is found to have an active gay sex life in airport public bathrooms. Clearly, the facade is a reaction to the discomfort of these urges. It’s quite sad, really, as this person is forced to live an unreal and false life.

Halloween is a time for adults to let that id out. For kids, it’s different. It’s still generally a time where they get to experiment with different identities, replicate their heroes, etc. Once childhood is over, however, it is expected that we no longer need to experiment with our identities. Adult/adolescent halloween costumes are different then kids’, as jack-o-lanterns and Spiderman are supplanted by demon baby figurines and pervy bananas.

The primary difference is that adult costumes offer the opportunity for people to express their uncomfortable and deep urges that were repressed years ago. The phenomenon of young women wearing ass-clinging, nipple-bearing costumes is really just a chance to throw off the constraints of conscience and show our shadow selves.

Whoa, check out the Ids on that one!

So, as Halloween approaches this year, think about what party you’re going to, why you have chosen to dress up as Snooki, and what desire this is really satisfying.

Josh Hooberman, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist who works at a large Manhattan hospital and keeps a small private psychotherapy practice. He probably thinks you’re crazy.

The post Halloween Psychology: What Your Slutty [________] Costume Says About You appeared first on HyperVocal.

One of the best places to view the intricacies of human behavior is in line at your local Starbucks. The ordering attitude of customers is of particular interest to me. The general routine is as follows: You strive to order the oh-so-perfectly thought-out coffee preparation that allows you to declare your brilliant personality to the world, as you stamp and storm at having to wait behind other people with the same such independent drink-ordering aspirations as you.

You demand it to be extra hot, or lacking foam, and you refuse to accept any indiscretions. Once you finally get your order, you are immediately soothed, and all previous irritation slips away (this could easily be a post about addiction, but that is for a later time). What is going on here? Why do you continue to submit to this routine when it is not that difficult to make a simple cup of coffee at home yourself? The answer is in the self-affirming reward. After a quick sip, that confidence-in-a-cup will pat you on the ass, soothe your fiery temper, and tell you to have a good day at work.

This brings me to my main point. At the risk of being an armchair psychologist who attempts to expound on how this-or-that explains the world (full disclosure: I am a psychologist currently sitting in an armchair), I will attempt to explain how our lust and demand for personalized coffee drinks (i.e., materialistic entitlement) is really just our attempt to get a little love from the world.

And where do we get that initial satisfaction and love in our lives? Enter the breast. There are many explanations about the origins of personality. These days, most people believe that the origins of personality are a little bit nature and a little bit nurture, and the two sing and dance with each other to form a harmonic musical review, like the Donny and Marie of the behavioral sciences.

Nevertheless, early childhood attachment to caregivers can set the stage for our forming our identities, as well as our views and relationships with others later in life. This starts early on in the mother-child dyad during weaning, by the mother’s milk that satisfies when we most need comforting so we can grow and face the hardships of the world. Of course, we all need to detach from this breast and learn to satisfy ourselves, but that early experience is still the prototype for that perfect love we once knew and continue to strive for on and on and on.

In our fast-paced, fast-food lives, commercials and other ads tell us what foods and materials will allow us to assert our personalities; they have become a proxy for real intimacy. This response is known as classical conditioning. The heck with venti and grande: Might as well just make those disposable coffee cups range in size from A-cup to D-cup.

Ultimately the point is that entitlement seems to run rampant in our society, at least in the big city in which I reside. By “entitlement,” I am speaking of the perceived belief that one deserves special treatment without any legitimate cause for receiving such. I’m sure you know these types of characters, as the behavior is cringe-worthy. Take, for example, the woman sitting next to me on a recent airplane trip, who refused to let the woman in front of her recline her seat, kicking it back each time the woman in front attempted to lay-back. She then demanded to be moved to first class (this was not allowed). Clearly it is difficult for some people to tolerate distress if it means sacrificing a portion of autonomy.

This behavior is not universal, however, as less individualized cultures do not encounter this in the same way. A fellow psychologist told me of a recent trip to India, where interpersonal discourse is primary in interactions, as one would not dream of engaging in a business transaction without first discussing one’s family, health, or other such personal matter. I am told that business goes slower and that everybody seems at ease with the delay. Not to say that Indians have a better way of life, but it appears that in some cultures, there is less need to exert one’s independence, perhaps because legitimate human intercourse exists in its pure form; there is not the material abundance acting which acts as an intimacy-surrogate.

Regardless of cultural background, the reality is that most people basically want the same thing: to lead satisfied, happy and fulfilling lives. While the initial reaction to seeing others’ entitled behaviors and attitudes may be disgust, aggravation and anger, I believe that it is really coming from a need for love and validation, like that we first received as a suckling infant.

My hope is that we will eventually be able to find our way to a bit of a gentler expression towards that end. In the meantime, get your goddamn latte outta my face.

Josh Hooberman, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist who works at a large Manhattan hospital and keeps a small private psychotherapy practice. He probably thinks you’re crazy.

The post Psychology 101: Why Your Latte is Like a Breast appeared first on HyperVocal.