When I began this journey in Forensic Psychology, I did not expect to learn as much as I have. The main tenet of this career consists in understanding psychopathy, and psychopathology.
It does make me question authoritarianism and the ways in which it can manifest. For instance, Milgram and Adorno et al. studied the psychology of obedience under pressure, and how following orders led to the holocaust. An aspect that has been questioned little is how scarcity or the fear of scarcity has led to similar phenomena due to how people have been conditioned to see money as an enabler of everyday behaviour. For instance, when Milgram conducted his obedience experiments during the 60s, he monetarily rewarded his participants for taking part in the studies. Modern psychologists have attempted to re-examine the dynamics at Yale’s laboratory and what might have led the participants to show that they were capable of being sadistic under such conditions. An example is Gibson’s (2013) work which meticulously examines the prods given by the experimenter. In a way, Gibson seeked to understand how the orders and requests given by the authority figure contributed to the decision-making processes of the participants. However, I have not come across much research highlighting the role of the monetary incentive in everyday behaviour; or how being given a monetary incentive places a subconscious obligation on individuals to comply with requests, even if such requests at times make them feel uncomfortable.
The c/s/x movement, also known as ‘the psychiatric survivors movement‘ (Wikipedia, n.d.) explores how a large number of individuals report feeling or having felt dehumanised by the mental health system. For the unstigmatised person, it is often more common to assume that all these people expressing dissatisfaction with the system are crazy, than to understand the nature of what it means to respect a person’s dignity and human rights. It is quite a complex situation, because it is unclear what reinforces and keeps some mental health settings from actively listening to their patients’ concerns.
According to Turner (2015), signal detection theory (SDT) “describes processes whereby information that is important to the perceiver (known as the ‘signal’) is distinguished from other information that is unimportant and potentially distracting (known as the ‘noise’)”. It is my hypothesis that some of the inherently dehumanising behaviours occurring in the mental health system happen as a result of the hyper-normalisation of object-relations with patients. As I mentioned on my post ‘Investigating the neuropsychopathologyof prejudice‘, people can at times perceive those with stereotyped and stigmatised characteristics as non-human objects. This would of course increase the chance of mental health settings staff processing signals coming from clients as background noise, rather than as worth-listening-to human signals. Such established conscious and unconscious behaviours leading to the dehumanisation of many clients are reinforced through monetary incentives, and through an intragroup, mob-like co-validation of such unconscious biases. Like Eichmann, many live their lives constantly affirming to themselves that they were just following procedures and orders, or just doing their job; and therefore they believe it is not their responsibility to reflect on how clients are impacted by this. But the signals coming from mental health patients often stand in stark contrast to the common belief that these dehumanising, and at times non-empathic methods are appropriate, or even de facto acceptable.
I do think everyone deserves to be paid for their labour, and that having access to a basic form of income is an important foundation in any society; and I also think that mental health settings need to be encouraged or trained appropriately to detect clients’ signals as more than just background noise (i.e. as more than non-human objects signals) in order to reduce risk outcomes. The situation is problematic, persistent, and pervasive with these manifestations of authoritarianism in mental health settings. It would indeed be arrogant to assume that all the patients/clients expressing dissatisfaction with the service are wrong, or to culturally pathologise reasonable dissent. It would also be irresponsible and de jure unacceptable to fail to take steps towards alleviating feelings of ‘being dehumanised’ in civil society, especially if such feelings of dehumanisation have the potential to lead to never events, such as suicide.
Turner, J. (2015) ‘Making sense of the world’, in Turner, J. and Barker, M. J. (eds) Living Psychology: From the Everyday to the Extraordinary, Milton Keynes, The Open University, pp. 7-45.
Lately I have slept better. Taking Zopiclone has helped me sleep through any kind of disturbance. Consequently, my mental health feels more in balance, and I have been able to once again concentrate on my research. I still feel a deep sense of injustice, but the things I research about give me hope for a better future.
As usual, I have been studying a lot. The books I am currently reading are really interesting. One of the chapters I am currently working on (Dixon, 2015) for university speaks about the neuropsychopathology of social cognition, and how prejudice can result from an institutionalised (i.e. culturally conditioned) context, becoming predetermined emotional responses. One of the excerpts that has mostly sounded relevant to my independent research on cultural narcissism is the following:
‘In a series of studies, using similar kinds of photographic stimuli and fMRI technology, Harris and Fiske (e.g. 2006) found that certain social groups do not produce the neurological signature of person perception. Instead, these groups are processed mainly by areas of the brain more associated with the perception of non-human objects; i.e. they are literally treated, neurologically, as though they were not, fully, fellow human beings. This reaction is worrying because the ‘dehumanisation’ of others has been associated with extreme expressions of prejudice (e.g. the willingness to torture, rape or murder other people)’ .
John Dixon (2015, p. 150)
Now, this object-relational evidence of prejudice and how it leads to the neurologically-based, inherent dehumanisation of those who are considered as out-groups (e.g. Here in the UK, those who are protected by the Equality Act 2010) is consistent with the narcissistic approach to relationships. The idea that simply categorising an individual as an outgroup is enough to attribute characteristics to them that are not humane is truly concerning. Now, combining this with the corporate-narcissistic agenda is essential for social change. It links up to the book I am currently reading about corporate psychopathy:
“While individual lapses in judgement may garner attention in many cases, the ability of psychopaths to cover or explain away their individual decisions makes evidence of these lapses difficult to obtain. Rather, it is the long-term impact of their behaviours in a variety of situations and their dealings with a variety of people that shed more light on who they really are”.
Robert Hare and Paul Babiak (2006, p. 248).
Based on the above, I begin wondering just how deep the neuropsychopathology of tyranny is. That is, what are the common excuses the general corporate narcissist uses to justify violations of human rights? Has the corporate narcissist been made through institutionalised behavioural conditioning which is partially reinforced by unconscious dogmatic-authoritarian beliefs? I suppose this is where forensic psychology as a science collaborates with occupational psychology, social psychology, and educational psychology to uncover these answers.
References
Dixon, J. (2015) ‘Why don’t we like one another? The psychology of prejudice and intergroup relations’, in Capdevila, R., Dixon, J., and Briggs, G. (eds) Investigating Psychology 2: From Social to Cognitive, Milton Keynes, The Open University, pp. 133-178.
Hare, D. R. and Babiak, P. (2006) Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work, New York, HarperCollins.
The world is in chaos. The coronavirus has accelerated at an unprecedented rate, leaving planet Earth feeling vulnerable and in a state of collective sorrow. Things have never been like this. Unless you are over 100 years old, you have never witnessed this level of transnosological danger in your entire life. Due to the panic-ridden headlines, many people are experiencing an aversion to potential loss or potential grief. Others seem to be in denial. Where is the balance? This article aims to explore some of the facts, figures, and dynamics determining coronavirus-associated behaviour.
“Protection motivation theory describes adaptive and maladaptive coping with a health threat as the result of two appraisal processes: threat appraisal and coping appraisal“.
The threat is perceived by the public as extremely severe and unprecedented. Here in the United Kingdom it has been set as high risk; and this is why Primer Minister Boris Johnson has enforced the draconian lockdown (Cabinet Office, 2020). The virus is very contagious, and due to the increasing death rates people are feeling very susceptible with this disease threatening their physical integrity, and potentially their life or the life of those whom they love. Nevertheless, it must be objectively said that 95% of recorded cases worldwide report mild symptoms. Yet, from mild symptoms have arisen many deaths.
How susceptible am I to the threat?
It seems that among the high risk groups are people over 80 years old, those with underlying health conditions, and smokers with chronic pulmonary problems. Furthermore, according to the United Nations (2020): “The risk depends on where you are – and more specifically, whether there is a COVID-19 outbreak unfolding there”. In other words, demographic variables will indicate the level of risk in specific areas. For instance, the South West area where I live in the UK is the area with the lowest risk of contamination (GOV.UK, 2020b), and my city (Plymouth) has only 26 cases so far (O’Leary, 2020). Furthermore, commenting on the safety of packages and deliveries, the UN (2020) further states: “The likelihood of an infected person contaminating commercial goods is low and the risk of catching the virus that causes COVID-19 from a package that has been moved, travelled, and exposed to different conditions and temperature is also low”. So if you are concerned about me, don’t worry, I am ready.
I sanitise my body, my environment, and my mind. Call me mad, but I’ll survive.
How is the virus appraised by the global government?
The World Health Organization (WHO) has warned the world about the fact that no antibiotics, no medication, and no vaccination has proven to prevent or cure the coronavirus. Therefore, they appraise this as a serious situation.
Mental health experts understand that this is without a doubt a stress-generative situation. The uncertainty that COVID-19 triggers is in many cases inevitable. Furthermore, the unpredictability and uncontrollability that manifest with the facts and figures are a source of anxiety for many people. Nevertheless, this does not mean that pre-emptive and preventive action cannot be taken. The GOV and the WHO have issued specific guidance which can help reduce the hazard and intensity of the situation. Sanitary action is in this case reasoned action, and this can be planned, performed, and maintained in order to cope with the threat in an adaptive way. Moreover, because this is an extraordinary situation which has disrupted the standard routines of many people, there is a certain level of confusion, fear, and worry. Remember to:
Wash your hands with soap as frequently as possible for 20 seconds.
Stay indoors unless it is absolutely necessary to go out to seek medical care.
Order groceries online as infrequently as possible instead of going to the shop (even though online deliveries are the least unsafe option, there is still a risk of contamination through such medium).
Coping Appraisal
INTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL: Factors which can be totally controlled by and depend solely on the individual.
EXTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL: Factors which can’t be controlled by and do not depend on the individual.
(Norman and Conner, 1996).
I see people behaving like nothing is happening. Am I too paranoid?
No. What you see happening is a state of collective denial. People keep going to work, doing physical exercise outdoors, and attending social gatherings because they are underestimating the severity of the threat. The kind of self-absorption that is dominant in individualistic, Western societies is an intellectual disadvantage in this case which requires an analysis of global events and behaviour. It only takes analysing what is happening in China, the US, Italy and Spain to understand that due to the incubation period of the virus (up to 2-3 weeks; Worldometers, 2020) it is quite possible that the COVID-19 is having a delayed impact in the UK. The virus does survive a long time in the air, meaning that it can be breathed quite easily. This is why a two metre distance is advised. Those behaving as if nothing was happening are not able to rationalise the threat because being able to move around gives them a false sense of being in control of the situation. In my opinion, it is an unnecessary risk they are taking. Similarly, those going to work outside the emergency system are still playing down the risk.
According to Norman and Conner (1996), the more an individual perceives potential health susceptibility, and the more that the threat is perceived to be severe, the more fear arousal there is. This means that the way people respond to the outbreak will depend on their level of awareness about the high risk the coronavirus poses. For instance, here in the UK there are more deaths than recoveries, and the counter for recoveries has been stuck at 135 (GOV.UK, 2020b) for several days already, unlike the counters for new cases and deaths, which keep burgeoning. This is problematic and worrisome. So if you are feeling too paranoid and as if you are being too careful, rest assured that you are just being as careful and responsible as you and everyone else are expected to be.
What can I do to calm down?
This is a good question, as everything functions better when people remain calm. There are many variables that are within your locus of control, such as the way you interpret the situation (perception) which can be optimised by engaging in intellectually stimulating activities such as reading, watching films, or having conversations. The more you learn, the more confident you will feel in assessing risk, and the more you will engage in reasoned behaviours that promote health and prevent disease. Another variable that you can control and nourish in yourself is your emotional wellbeing, which can be enhanced by ensuring that you get enough sleep (this will also boost your immune system, and will therefore help you fight off infections; NHS.UK, 2018), that you eat well, and that you have a tidy and clean environment around you. If you have long-term conditions, it is necessary that you continue to take your prescribed medications during this time in order to keep healthy. Furthermore, remember that you have the capacity of preventing contamination by following the guidance. Successfully executing the recommended courses of action will help you feel self-efficient and safe. Engage in some yoga or pilates at home, entertain yourself, and stay in touch with your family and friends digitally. Keep the following points in mind:
Neither underestimate nor overestimate the magnitude of the situation. Stay tuned for the facts and figures.
You can sign online petitions to participate in requesting specific outcomes for the common good.
Plan for short to medium term supplies and associated variables of a lockdown.
Mental contagion can happen if you allocate too much time and attention to digital material which is sensationalist or misinformed. Be wise about the type of information you consume.
Double check that your beliefs about what is healthy are not based on misinformation. Here are some myth busters to keep in mind:
What factors are not under my control?
There are several variables that could become a source of frustration during the lockdown. Anything that is outside your mind, and outside your environment is outside your control. You are not responsible for the behaviour of others, and the best thing you can do is share the guidance with your loved ones and hope that they follow it. Moreover, you have no current participation in most of the decision-making processes of the jurisdiction (e.g. the legal measures being duly taken by the GOV in relation to this pandemic). If you are not able to work from home, and cannot make money as a result, you might feel like everything is going to collapse, and in such case all you can do is hope that the GOV will protect your welfare, as such decision is within their locus of control. If you are a key worker, you might feel that your life is being put at risk in order to save the life of others. All you can do is hope that the GOV will listen to the healthcare industry in regards to the much needed protective equipment, spaces, and ventilators. This too is within the GOV’s locus of control. For example, medical staff in Spain are being forced to sedate and asphyxiate the elderly to death in order to use their ventilators on younger patients. Because providing equipment is a decision which only the Spanish political leaders can make, doctors are having a psychological breakdown and are accusing the authorities of genocide for neglecting the welfare of vulnerable citizens. Take a look at this video:
Norman, P. and Conner, M. (1996) ‘The role of social cognition in health behaviours’, in Conner, M. (ed) Predicting Health Behaviour, Buckingham, Open University Press, pp. 1-22.
David Rockerfeller, the father of modern economics and consumer society (also known in the underground community as “the king of the New World Order”), expired on Monday 20/03/2017 whilst he slept, aged 101, as a result of congestive heart failure.
There are two sides to every coin, and Mr. Rockerfeller was no exception. When it comes to figures of great power, such as the members of this family; information tends to vary. This article aims to explore the different sides to David Rockerfeller in a neutral way, so the reader can make their own opinion based on facts, rather than hearsay.
All links can be found in the “references” section.
BACKGROUND
He graduated at Harvard in 1936, before going to the London School of Economics, where he properly met John F. Kennedy. He later returned to the US and received a Ph.D from the University of Chicago. Soon after that, he worked for eighteen months as the secretary to the New York major of the time, on “a dollar a year” public service salary.
He also served in the army during World War II, after which he started his successful career at Chase Bank in 1946 as an assistant manager, until he retired in 1981 as chief executive and chairman. During the time he was alive, he was highly influential, respected by the most powerful authority figures of the world (both, political and religious); and successfully became the oldest billionaire alive.
Mr. Rockerfeller accumulated great wealth from a young age, influenced by his mother, who helped him see what made any business work. He was seen as the guardian of the family’s fortune and he taught his children that wealth brings great responsibilities.[References]
YIN – “The Dark Legacy”
Mr. Rockerfeller was a figure of nobility, seen as the unspoken king of the “one world order”. Even though he was publicly involved with the global market, and the social change stemming from such; it is also believed that he had a dark side which he was extremely circumspect about. Anonymous News reports: “he was largely successful in hiding his most significant wrongdoings from public view… lived his entire life in the echelons of U.S. society, becoming symbolic of the elite who often direct public policy to a much greater extent than many realize, albeit often from the shadows”.[References]
In other words, he had much more influence over international politics than he admitted to. Some believe this is a result of his inherited, multi-generational, family power, position, and wealth. He had personal ties with members of the Central Intelligence Agency, and some even claim that he was directly involved with the second world war. The Israelite national press reported in 2010: “Sweden’s Center Party has promised to take action following the discovery that one of its candidates for Parliament [Ove Sviden] blames Jews and US magnate David Rockefeller for the second World War as well as the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States”.[References]
Moreover, he is blamed for specific dark traits that entered society, the market, and culture in general.“During his time as Chase CEO, Rockefeller helped laid the foundation for repressive, racist and fascist regimes around the world, as well as architecture for global inequality”. He was also judged for the trades he attempted to consolidate during the cold war”.[References]
YANG – “The Light Legacy”
Rockerfeller was celebrated by many as a passionate art collector, a globalist, and a philanthropist. He was admired by A listers in the celebrity community and by political figures. “Many organizations have been promised vast sums of money upon Rockefeller’s death”. The Family Fund has sponsored many programs, among which are the Marshall Project, Free Press, and Free Speech for People.[References]
David Rockerfeller pledged $100 million to the Museum of Modern Art, $100 million to the Rockerfeller University, and $100 to Harvard. Furthermore, on his 100th birthday, he donated 1000 acres of land. In total, it is estimated that he gave away over two billions during his lifetime.
He is credited with the project that led to world trade center. “David Rockefeller wielded power and influence without ever seeking public office. Among his many accomplishments were spurring the project that led to the World Trade Center”.[References]
THE LINK BETWEEN THE ECONOMY & POVERTY
When it comes to economy, one controversy stands: the platform of transparency that is expected of leading governments of the world has been tainted by the different crimes committed in the name of the oil industry. David Rockerfeller was a corporate master, and a pioneer. “He is part of a family dynasty whose name is associated with America and has become legend. His grandfather John D Rockefeller who died in 1937 was the founder of Standard Oil and the world’s richest individual.”[References]
First-world governments are worth trillions, and some spend over $500 billion (USD) per year in military alone . One question arises: Why is there poverty in a world where the bodies acting in people’s behalves (authorities, politicians, royalty) are given huge amounts of money from taxation to solve these things?But talking about world poverty… How much is it really needed to end global poverty? The Borgen Magazine reported in 2014: “According to a 1998 United Nations estimate, providing education, water, sanitation, nutrition and basic health care to the entire population of every developing country would cost $40 billion. Adjusted for inflation, the cost to end global poverty would be approximately $58 billion today”. Nevertheless, many believe that by 2017, the price is a lot higher than that. David Rockerfeller left a net worth of $3.3 billion. So he alone could not have eradicated poverty. [References]
Why are private, independent charities known to help more effectively than the people we have chosen as leaders? Questioning the system is essential if we want to truly understand the roots of inequality occurring in consumer society. Forbes stated on the matter: “We just don’t count the money that alleviates poverty as actually reducing poverty. That’s it, really: spend vast sums but pretend that it has no effect… $550 billion is indeed spent on the poor so therefore there shouldn’t be any poverty.”[References]
FUN FACTS FOR INQUISITIVE MINDS
David Rockerfeller actually admitted to the conspiracy of the “One World Order” to being true in his autobiography. Although strangely, this information got heavily censored online and some links can only be viewed through the Web Archive.[References]
Wikileaks has 945 documents published in their archives about David Rockerfeller.[References]
He refused several political positions that were offered to him during his life, such as the United States Secretary of The Treasury role.[References]
His eldest son, David Rockerfeller Jr. is mentioned in the podesta series of Wikileaks. Moreover, Wikipedia is flagging his page as “to be deleted”.[References]
945 documents from our archives on David Rockefeller. a central figure in U.S. power, who died this week aged 101 https://t.co/QZWdJIMcwf
