PhD/PsyD Culture

[erg923]

Allow me to vent...and then post comments or thoughts.

The more work I do, the more I notice a trend in my VA patients to prefer to be by themselves. I am NOT really referring to the social withdrawal that comes with clinical depression/anhedonia or PTSD either. I'm talking about a general personality trait/preference, as well and an irritability and intolerance for others that also appears equally stable and global. I am not sure how pervasive this is in other mental health settings, but I would assume it is there to some degree?

This, in my opinion, perhaps reflects the current culture we live in where many seem to be more enraptured in their own world, own interests, etc. Perhaps this comes from technology? Perhaps the rugged individualism of Western (especially US) culture? So many of my patients are socially disconnected and uninvolved...even with their immediate families (wife’s, children, etc.) AND they prefer this and see little problem with it. I guess I am just sad to see this. I dont know. Personally, I see much problem with the erosion of "community" (or the percived importance of community) in the fabric of our lives, and I believe it is responsible for alot of the decay in standards of behavior and personal morality. While I cherish the freedom we all have as individuals in this country, I sometimes feel that the "individualism" thing has swung so far that now we view OURSELVES (our wants, our needs, our freedoms) as being of PREMIER importance and that we are only responsible for ourselves. I think this underlying belief is reflected in many common practices, governmental/institutional policies, and behavioral trends in recent years. And I am just now sure how "just" this really is. My grandfather, who is 91, always says that the biggest difference between today and when he grew-up in the 30s and 40s isn’t advances in technology or knowledge, it is people's attitude towards one another.

Mother Theresa once said: "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other…"

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[BuckeyeLove]

There was a book that came out about 15 years ago called "Bowling Alone," that addressed some of these points with some data to go with it.

 

[psych84]

I can tell you from my polisci studies that technology has little to do with social withdrawal. In fact research shows the OPPOSITE. Many people use the internet to talk to more people, and people who were social before the internet use the net to meet more people in person than ever before. Technology also gets blamed for job losses, but again, it is the opposite, technology increases the number of jobs in an area (just different sort of jobs).

What has happened however is things that use to be private , (like the family) are now very public. We thought people were moral and that things were pretty good because we knew nothing about other peoples lives. Yeah, maybe we hanged around with our neighours a lot and thought we really knew them, but you never know what really happens behind closed doors. And even if we did know, we thought that was a "family" thing, something to be dealt with within those walls. But families are very public now, and in large part because of the rights movement. For example, if we consider domestic violence against women, that movement realized that for things to truly change it had to become a public concern. Domestic violence was not some private thing that husband/wife had to work on,(as many traditional people would believe) but it was everyone's business, and we all had a role to play in stopping it. ie (the police should get involved, certain organizations, etc)

I also think that we have to be careful in assuming that there was something "natural" and "good" about how things were in the past. We all have the habit of yearning for the past. But when you really tink about, things were pretty ****ty for most people 50yrs back. It was great if you were white, rich, and male, but if you were a woman, gay, black, or poor, things were pretty bad. I understand valuing family and community, and I can remember my childhood (which was not that long ago, and enjoying time with my family). But I also think that we have to check ourselve and realize that family is a social construct, (and if we consider the definition of family in the traditional sense) it was a pretty restrictive definition that left many people out. And within that restrictive definition of family, you had strict gender roles (also socially constructed). So when people use words like "family" and "community", I'm always curious what they really mean. Do they long for the times when there were strict gender roles? Do they realize that in many situations families were filled with problems and it was much better if they weren't together? (a wife wanted to leave an abusive husband, but couldn't). Today, she can.

I don't think individualism is neccesarily a problem in the United States, what is the problem is that specific interests have taken over the govt. and regular people are being robbed blind.

 

[ikibah]

Erg, I made this exact revelation a few months ago. I remember I was sitting in a social environment class and we were learning about systems theories and how vital positive reaction between the individual and family systems are. At this point my mind wandered off to how human interaction these days is working less and less like a broad interacting system and more like a bunch of individual "self-systems" that don't care or are not effected by positive reaction....rather we have more of a disconnected relationship that leads us to do our own thing without truly getting involved with others.

 

[erg923]

I can tell you from my polisci studies that technology has little to do with social withdrawal. In fact research shows the OPPOSITE. Many people use the internet to talk to more people, and people who were social before the internet use the net to meet more people in person than ever before. Technology also gets blamed for job losses, but again, it is the opposite, technology increases the number of jobs in an area (just different sort of jobs).

What has happened however is things that use to be private , (like the family) are now very public. We thought people were moral and that things were pretty good because we knew nothing about other peoples lives. Yeah, maybe we hanged around with our neighours a lot and thought we really knew them, but you never know what really happens behind closed doors. And even if we did know, we thought that was a "family" thing, something to be dealt with within those walls. But families are very public now, and in large part because of the rights movement. For example, if we consider domestic violence against women, that movement realized that for things to truly change it had to become a public concern. Domestic violence was not some private thing that husband/wife had to work on,(as many traditional people would believe) but it was everyone's business, and we all had a role to play in stopping it. ie (the police should get involved, certain organizations, etc)

I also think that we have to be careful in assuming that there was something "natural" and "good" about how things were in the past. We all have the habit of yearning for the past. But when you really tink about, things were pretty ****ty for most people 50yrs back. It was great if you were white, rich, and male, but if you were a woman, gay, black, or poor, things were pretty bad. I understand valuing family and community, and I can remember my childhood (which was not that long ago, and enjoying time with my family). But I also think that we have to check ourselve and realize that family is a social construct, (and if we consider the definition of family in the traditional sense) it was a pretty restrictive definition that left many people out. And within that restrictive definition of family, you had strict gender roles (also socially constructed). So when people use words like "family" and "community", I'm always curious what they really mean. Do they long for the times when there were strict gender roles? Do they realize that in many situations families were filled with problems and it was much better if they weren't together? (a wife wanted to leave an abusive husband, but couldn't). Today, she can.

I don't think individualism is neccesarily a problem in the United States, what is the problem is that specific interests have taken over the govt. and regular people are being robbed blind.

I think you are probably talking about something different. I am not talking about equal rights and I am well aware of Jim Crow and that things werent better 50 years ago. What I am talking about is the undeniable shift from a focus on community (sometimes that community itself is restrictive or exclusive, I get that) to a focus on self, self as the sole deteminant of behavior/fate, and self as the greatest priority. The focus on supplying the self, vs others, as the ultimatte achievment. This shift started many decades ago as well, I realize.

 

[WisNeuro]

I think you are probably talking about something different. I am not talking about equal rights and I am well aware of Jim Crow and that things werent better 50 years ago. What I am talking about is the undeniable shift from a focus on community (sometimes that community itself is restrictive or exclusive, I get that) to a focus on self, self as the sole deteminant of behavior/fate, and self as the greatest priority. The focus on supplying the self, vs others, as the ultimatte achievment. This shift started many decades ago as well, I realize.

I don't know if you're talking about the "Generation ME" literature or not, but if you are, I would urge you to read up the rebuttals of that work. It was shoddy methodologically and doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Seems to be a pattern that recycles in generations.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I wonder if there are a % of Veterans who are extending the, "If I limit my social/public interactions with others, then they can't piss me off/bother me, etc."? I saw this regularly during my time in the VA system.

A portion may also identify more with introversion, which can be a healthy and positive thing. Unfortunately the world is skewed to reward extroverts, and preferring time away from people/doing things alone is often viewed negatively. /introvert perspective.

ps. The book "Quiet" touches on some of these ideas. It offers some data to support the ideas, though it is not a rigorous review of the literature.

 

[erg923]

I don't know if you're talking about the "Generation ME" literature or not, but if you are, I would urge you to read up the rebuttals of that work. It was shoddy methodologically and doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Seems to be a pattern that recycles in generations.

No, not really that either. This (what i am talking about) spans generations and I do not notice this more in younger patients. Maybe I am not articulating myself or my concern properly. Alot of this is driven how my faith informs my view of the world and how this, I am realizing, is so increasingly different from and incongruent with modern popular trends.

 

[erg923]

I wonder if there are a % of Veterans who are extending the, "If I limit my social/public interactions with others, then they can't piss me off/bother me, etc."? I saw this regularly during my time in the VA system.

A portion may also identify more with introversion, which can be a healthy and positive thing. Unfortunately the world is skewed to reward extroverts, and preferring time away from people/doing things alone is often viewed negatively. /introvert perspective.

ps. The book "Quiet" touches on some of these ideas. It offers some data to support the ideas, though it is not a rigorous review of the literature.

Again, big difference between being an "extravert" and what I am trying to say here. I am not a particuarly extraverted either.

 

[psych84]

I think you are probably talking about something different. I am not talking about equal rights and I am well aware of Jim Crow and that things werent better 50 years ago. What I am talking about is the undeniable shift from a focus on community (sometimes that community itself is restrictive or exclusive, I get that) to a focus on self, self as the sole deteminant of behavior/fate, and self as the greatest priority. The focus on supplying the self, vs others, as the ultimatte achievment. This shift started many decades ago as well, I realize.

Understood. But I think what you are percieving as self-interest/focus on self could also be explained as people becoming more cautious/careful, and even being more concerned about others than before. Maybe people are less social because they feel their negative aspects can negativley impact others, so they choose to withdraw and focus on themselves, until they "fix" themselves. People are a lot more aware of themselves and others because of the amount of information/knowledge we have now, compared to the past.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

My grandfather, who is 91, always says that the biggest difference between today and when he grew-up in the 30s and 40s isn’t advances in technology or knowledge, it is people's attitude towards one another.

There was a stark contrast in perspectives when I did C&P evaluations on Veterans from different wars. I remember a particular WWII Veteran who told me he didn't want addition money/benefits, though his grandson was insistent that he finally get service connected (at the age of 92-93?) He told me about his life before the war and after the war, though he framed it as how he viewed his service. He talked about serving out of a feeling of duty and responsibility to his family and his country so that he could return home and raise his family without living in fear of them being hurt/killed. This was in great contrast to a younger Veteran I saw (mid-20s) who displayed such a sense of entitlement it really shook me. My experience stuck out because they were back to back, otherwise I probably wouldn't have had the same reaction. The "greatest generation" isn't flawless, but I can't help but feel their approach to life has/had a lot of merit that seems to be lacking in some of the younger generations (mine included).

 

[smalltownpsych]

I see this dynamic as well. Personal observations and clinical observations tell me that the divorce rate has a lot to do with this. Also, some of it could be a result of increased mobility. We tend to move away from the family more these days. These are great sociological questions and brings up the fact that sociologists and psychologists should probably collaborate more because of how much our work intersects.

In my clinical work, I see more resilience, quicker recoveries, and just better outcomes overall when there is involvement in community. If a client has a close-knit family, supportive friends, active religious practice, involvement in a charitable group, then my work is easy and I might not even get the chance to meet with them because they don't need my services or maybe two or three sessions to help them access their existing resources.

The other side is when I meet with an individual who has no connections. I see a huge uphill climb then and often feel overwhelmed by the case because I cannot provide what they need.

Final note, the vets typically have at least one community that we can tie them into, sometimes they are frustrated or angry with the military or other vets or their country, but that anger is of itself a sign of a good connection.

 

[erg923]

Some concrete examples: These are more societal examples and not examples of what I see at the individual level in my patients. At that level, its more of a focus on not wanting to be "bothered" by other people, thus they simply socially withdraw and become disconnected. But, I cant help but think that these things are correlated. That is, one being a symptom, or perhaps a consequence, of the other?

1.)The fervent "us" and "them" dichotomy we see in many aspects of society. Illustrated perhaps by crowds shouting "go home" and "we don’t want you here!" towards a bus full of immigrant children in southern California last week. Yes, let’s tighten up the border and address the cause if we can, but for goodness sake, "we all belong to each other." I do not want my children to be taught to view some people as less deserving of basic humanitarian assistance because they happen to not be "official US citizens." My wife and I cringed when we saw families doing this togther. I cant imagine teaching my children to be so hardened/dismissive of the suffering and perspective of other people who are less fortunate in this world. To wash the feet of the shunned and disaffected seems like a much more righetous lesson to teach ones children. And the world would be a much friendlier place if we embraced that ideology, in my opinion.

2.) Last year, my wife observed a child who hadn’t completed her in-class assignment because she had been helping another student who was struggling. The teacher (my wife was doing a peer obseration) chastised the child and said, "don’t worry about what little Johnny is doing, just worry about yourself." I suppose I understand where that was coming from pragmatically, but its TERRIBLE message to send to children if you really think about it.

 

[IT514]

Ever read any Wendell Berry? His thoughts on personal/sociological consequence of the movement from the local/land economy to large scale agribusiness/global economy are interesting, and I think relate somewhat to what you are talking about, erg. His Jefferson lecture, It All Turns on Affection, and his other non-fiction (What are People For?) are certainly worth a read. I read those as well as most of his fiction from the Port William series while on internship at a VA. Found them to be therapeutic and tied into my work quite well.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I don't think the "us" vs. "them" dynamic is much more pervasive now than in the past. Maybe it's shifted around a bit, though, and/or there are more opportunities for it to be displayed nowadays. Also, perhaps the internet, cable TV, etc., have led to an exposure overload of sorts, such that people have a hard time processing all of the information about different cultures, how to respect and approach folks from different backgrounds, etc. I'd imagine we see much more of this now (i.e., we really are, in some ways, more of a "global community") now than at any time in the past. So maybe folks' brains are just getting overwhelmed and they're shutting down a bit; xenophobia's a bit less taxing, after all.

Also, with all of the social interaction that can now be had without leaving one's home, I could see it leading to an odd, paradoxical sort of isolationist socialization. There's no longer a sense of disconnection from the world if you stay inside all day, so if people stay inside more, then may start to exhibit fewer of the communal/community-oriented types of behaviors we're used to seeing. And maybe the concepts of "community" and "communal behavior" are becoming re-defined as a result.

I don't know if I see much more of a, "watch out for yourself and screw everyone else" mentality now than in the past, though.

 

[erg923]

There has been a steady decline in fraternal and/or community based organizations/societies for many years now. Friars club, Lions club, Knights of Columbus, Masons/Jobs daughters, etc.

While this is not evidence of an increase in "screw everyone else, I'm here for me" I think it's indicative of a society that is increasingly losing interest in doing things together. This, in turn, leads to/reinforces beliefs that the self is all that matters and is essentially all that is needed to live a full life. And if one doesn't really value anything outside their own world, this generally leads to problems, both to the individual and to society in general.

 

[psych84]

I would be interested though to learn of any research that ties awareness/intelligence/ and psychopathology. Are more aware/intelligent people more prone to psychopathology than unaware/less smart individuals? Are we all to some extent becoming more aware because there is so much information out there? For example, what role does advertising/media have in eating disorders/or poor body image? Ie were people so aware of their flaws before? did people ever before have as much information about others than ever before? could we self-analyze/over-analyze ourself anywhere near to the level that we do know without the internet?

 

[IT514]

I don't know if I see much more of a, "watch out for yourself and screw everyone else" mentality now than in the past, though.

Well, how far do you want to go back? I do think there is something to be said for the shift that occurred during and post World Wars I & II, which was a movement away from a relatively stronger local economy where people relied on the land a bit more, and thus relied more on the people around them because they HAD to. Bring in the post-WWII bump in industrialization and agribusiness (leading to more of a competitive, winners vs losers economy), fewer opportunities in small communities, younger folks flocking into cities, less reliance on those around you...it seems a bit inevitable that there would be more of an individualistic cultural trend. I dont think human nature has changed but the context certainly has, enabling a more personally driven mindset. Andrew Delbanco's The Real American Dream describes a similar movement, as does Wendell Berry as I mentioned earlier, and I've heard this described by numerous folks who have lived through it.

I dont think that schools help, either, IMO. "Getting ahead" seems to be the point of public schooling as opposed to learning to care for and contribute to one's community.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

There has been a steady decline in fraternal and/or community based organizations/societies for many years now. Friars club, Lions club, Knights of Columbus, Masons/Jobs daughters, etc.

While this is not evidence of an increase in "screw everyone else, I'm here for me" I think it's indicative of a society that is increasingly losing interest in doing things together. This, in turn, leads to/reinforces beliefs that the self is all that matters and is essentially all that is needed to live a full life. And if one doesn't really value anything outside their own world, this generally leads to problems, both to the individual and to society in general.

Although I wonder how much of the participation in community activities/doing things together has shifted from the real to virtual worlds (e.g., online gaming, forums *cough*, etc.).

 

[erg923]

Although I wonder how much of the participation in community activities/doing things together has shifted from the real to virtual worlds (e.g., online gaming, forums *cough*, etc.).

Very true. But also illustrates my point. Social isolation, as you put it.

I think my overarching point and concern here is that when I suggest social activities, to my patients, as I often do, many look at me like I have 5 heads...as in "why would I want be bothered by other people or their problems" (please note I am working with relatively mild pathology in my setting. I am not suggesting this to schizoids and PTSD patients). The view of others as a burden, in other words. While the general population doesn't deomstrate this extreme, the increasing focus on self allows for a gradual drift/shift in how we live our lives and how we view the world...which in turn shapes social norms and habits. I think this then comes out in extereme forms in those dealing with MH problems.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Very true. But also illustrates my point. Social isolation, as you put it.

I think my overarching point and concern here is that when I suggest social activities, to my patients, as I often do, many look at me like I have 5 heads...as in "why would I want be bothered by other people or their problems" (please note I am working with relatively mild pathology in my setting. I am not suggesting this to schizoids and PTSD patients). The view of others as a burden, in other words. While the general population doesn't deomstrate this extreme, the increasing focus on self allows for a gradual drift/shift in how we live our lives and how we view the world...which in turn shapes social norms and habits. I think this then comes out in extereme forms in those dealing with MH problems.

Oh, I'm not disagreeing, trust me. The "social activity in isolation" situation seems like it could lend itself to the sorts of things you're observing, sure. That is, you're able to have just as much social activity as you want, when you want it, and can log out whenever you've had enough. The "real world" of course does not work exactly like this, and if the majority of your social exposure and experiences are occurring online, it could certainly end up being problematic.

 

[PsyDr]

Erg,

You are literally describing the story of narcissus. You know why certain people prefer to entertain themselves. It's like a generation or two of telling children that they are special and can do anything they set their minds to, has consequences.