Disturbing the Disturbed: Swing A Little More!

Now for the second instalment of Disturbing the Disturbed... a title I am now less than thrilled with. Ah, well what’s done is done. I will mention that in these posts I will dwell on symptoms, percentages, demographics, definitions, and occasionally causation rather than treatments and that sort of thing – I’m more interested in clarifying things.

A scene that is all too common in fiction, and real life I’ve noticed, is when some character’s mood changes multiple times in a short period. Either and argument will ensue or the mood-swinger will leave the room, but either way the aftermath will contain a line like “What are they? Bipolar?”
This is incorrect. The first disorder we shall discuss today is Bipolar disorder which, rather surprisingly I must admit, has very many aspects to it. After that we will discuss the true identity of this mysterious mood-swinging illness which has so maligned BD.

Bipolar (Affective) Disorder
This disorder is formally known as manic-depressive disorder which, in my opinion, gives a better indication as to what is actually going on.

Firstly bipolar is a mood disorder that is defined by the present of one or more episodes of mania (elated energy/cognition/mood) with/without one of more depressive episodes. Just so you know what I’m going on about, I will list the definitions of those the different episodes.

Depressive Episode: Persistent feelings of sadness, anxiety, guilt, anger, isolation, or hopelessness; disturbances in sleep and appetite; fatigue and loss of interest in usually enjoyable activities; problems concentrating; loneliness, self-loathing, apathy or indifference; depersonalization; loss of interest in sexual activity; shyness or social anxiety; irritability, chronic pain (with or without a known cause); lack of motivation; and morbid suicidal ideation.
In the more severe cases, psychosis may occur with the sufferer experiencing unpleasant delusions and (less commonly) hallucinations. The episode will persist for at least 2 weeks and may exceed 6 months if untreated.

Manic Episode: This is the “signature characteristic” of BD and it’s severity dictates how the disorder is classified. Generally, mania is a distinct period of elevated mood, sometimes euphoria. Other symptoms include increased energy, decreased need for sleep (as little as 3 or 4 hours a night or even a few days without sleeping), pressured speech (talking fast and frenzied), racing thoughts (random thoughts and memories moving quickly), low attention span, and being easily distracted. In this state the sufferer’s judgement may be impaired such that they may indulge in behaviour that is abnormal for them (e.g. spending sprees) and some may go as far as substance abuse particularly alcohol (depressants), cocaine (stimulants), and sleeping pills. Behaviour can get aggressive, intolerant, or intrusive and the sufferer may feel out of control, unstoppable or like they are on a special mission or some such grandiose delusion. In related news they may experience an increased sex drive. Manic episodes can vary from person to person and where some may experience severe anxiety and irritability to the point of rage, others are grandiose and euphoric.
In the case of Bipolar I (discussed soon) the sufferer may experience psychosis or a break from reality – basically where their thinking is affected along with their mood.

For such things to be called mania they must last for at least one week, unless hospitalization is required. There are various scales used to measure the severity of a manic episode, including the self-reported Altman Self-Rating Mania Scale and clinician-based Young Mania Rating Scale.


Hypomanic Episode: Basically a mild/moderate version of mania, mainly characterized by optimism, pressured speech and activity, and decreased need for sleep. Unlike those inflicted by typical mania, many of those inflicted by hypomania will actually be more productive since they get all the energy associated with mania but none of the shortened attention span. Of course, they can also suffer some of the other symptoms such as increased creativity, poor judgement, irritability, and hypersexuality. However, they will not get the delusions or hallucinations.
While this actually sounds rather neat (I mean the more energy and inspiration deal – not the bipolar disorder that’s attached) hypomania is harder to diagnose since it just looks like happiness despite carrying the same risks as mania (the impaired judgement and possible substance abuse). Often those who experience hypomania will deny it since it actually feels good – if they can remember what they did as sometimes one cannot remember what happens while in hypomania.
It is stressed that hypomania is not a bad thing on its own – in fact, when it’s not irritable, it’s typically called hyperthymia or happiness. It’s when it’s accompanied by depressive episodes or when the mood changes are uncontrollable and mercurial (also known as volatile but mercurial is such a pretty word) that the problem.

“Indeed, the most elementary definition of bipolar disorder is an often "violent" or "jarring" state of essentially uncontrollable oscillation between hyperthymia and dysthymia.”

Hypomania can last from a few days to a few years – more commonly in the weeks to months category though.

Mixed Affective Episode: This is where symptoms of both mania and clinical depression occur at the same time – so, exactly what it says on the tin. This state presents itself as a combination of the two symptoms – like tearfulness during a manic episode, or racing thoughts during a depressive one. This can frustrate the sufferer as in this state they can feel like crap but have a “flight of ideas” (basically ideas going through your head so fast that you can’t keep track).
This is a very dangerous state as complications such as substance abuse, panic disorder and suicide attempts increase greatly.

Now, usually when a person meets the criteria for BD it is because they experience a number of episodes, averaging 0.4 to 0/7 a year (lasting 3 to six months). However, there is rapid cycling which is defined as having 4 or more episodes a year and is found in a significant portion of BD sufferers. Ultra-rapid (days) and ultra-ultra rapid or ultradian (within a day) cycling have also been described. Rapid cycling can happen in any of the Bipolar subtypes, which I will now discuss.

There are quite a few types of BD (not as many as schizophrenia but we’ll get to that at a later date). The DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10, conceptualize bipolar disorder as a spectrum of disorders occurring on a continuum. Here are the main ones.
Bipolar I disorder
One or more manic episodes. Subcategories specify whether there has been more than one episode, and the type of the most recent episode. A depressive or hypomanic episode is not required for diagnosis, but it frequently occurs.
Bipolar II disorder
No manic episodes, but one or more hypomanic episodes and one or more major depressive episode. A bipolar II diagnosis is not a guarantee that they will not mania in the future. As discussed in the hypomania section, it is difficult to identify hypomania and this bipolar II is also difficult to diagnose for those reasons as well as it being reported less frequently than a “distressing, crippling depression”.
Cyclothymia
A history of hypomanic episodes with periods of depression that do not meet criteria for major depressive episodes. The “low-grade” cycling of mood can be confused for a personality trait and interferes with functioning.
Bipolar Disorder NOS (Not Otherwise Specified)
This is a catchall category, diagnosed when the disorder does not fall within a specific subtype.

Causation:
Okay, BD has been theorized to have genetic, physiological, and environmental causes – though most studies seem to agree that with that there is some sort of trigger event in the former cases.

Now, in BD sufferers we have rather high suicide rates – 1 in 3 will attempt, or complete, suicide and the annual average suicide rate is 0.4% - 10 to 20 times that of the general population. However, in terms of symptoms that can signal the oncoming BD, as children the sufferers can have suffered mood abnormalities, full major depressive episodes, and ADHD. The onset of BD is accompanied by changes in cognitive processes/abilities including reduced attention, executive capabilities, and impaired memory.

4% of the population will suffer “broadly defined” BD in their life. The lifetime prevalence of BD type 1 is estimated at 2% and is equally prevalent in men and women and across society.

Late adolescence and early adulthood are the peak years for the onset of the disorder but, interestingly, in 10% of bipolar cases the onset of mania happened after the age of 50.

In terms of the age of the sufferer, BD can affect all ages though in the case of the elderly while it is supposed that it becomes less prevalent, it is difficult to tell if they are suffering from BD as they may also be suffering from dementia or side-effects of medications for other conditions.
(Bipolar disorder in children)As for children, mania episodes are rare before puberty and due to the discovery of conditions like ADHD it is hard to differentiate the two in children as instead of euphoric mania they get outbursts of anger, irritability, and psychosis. Also, the stereotypical view of BD appears in children – that is the fast mood swings.

The main treatment for Bipolar Disorder is lithium – the lightest metal known. Side-effects of this include significant weight gain, possible birth defects in new born babies if the sufferer is pregnant (as it’s a teratogen), and dehydration.
Fun fact: the dehydration is caused because lithium competes with the receptors for the antidiuretic hormone in the kidney, causing more water output in the urine – this is called nephrogenic diabetes insipidus (mentioned in the clinic case of a House episode). Now, while lithium is usually cleared from the kidneys with the help of medication it can lead to more depression than before as well as suicidal thoughts/actions and will reduce activity of thyroid hormone (hypothyroidism). So while lithium is the only drug known to reduce suicide in Bipolar sufferers, some of the drugs required to get it out of the your system will increase suicidal impulses… great.
(… actually, the thyroid condition that results from the medication may be the cause of the misconception that bipolar means moodswings – I am very closely acquainted with someone who suffers hypothyroidism and they do get severe mood-swings from that condition. Huh, that’s fridge brilliance for you…)

I mention these side effects as I’ve actually heard of people taking Lithium recreationally and I just find that idiotic (just look to the Wikipedia page on what happens when you overdose – it’s not pretty). That above piece of inspiration was not planned – but now we suspect know! And knowing is half the battle.

Aaaaand back on track! –looks up at the page- Ok... I think that’s quite enough on Bipolar Disorder.

Now, Bipolar is often mistaken Unipolar depression as while Bipolar has both stages of mania and depression it is inconsistent as to the which mood is prominent in sufferers. Also, the younger the age of onset, the more likely the first episodes are to be depressive ones. Because it may take a while for sufferers to have their first manic episode (10% of sufferers don’t get their first manic episode till they’re 50) many are misdiagnosed as having major depression. Actually, Bipolar is so difficult to diagnose it can be mistaken for schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, drug intoxication, brief drug-induced psychosis, schizophreniform disorder and borderline personality disorder.

However, in fiction the thing that is mistaken for BD is… Borderline Personality Disorder. Why? Mood swings of course!

However, in the case of BD moodswings refer to the previously discussed episodes, which can last for weeks or months and disrupt appetites and sleeping patterns.

In BPD, the moodswings are the actually marked lability (uncontrolled displays on emotion such as laughing or crying) and reactivity of mood (poorly modulated emotional response that does not fall within the conventionally accepted range of emotive response) to external stressors. These have negligible affects on sleep and appetite. These mood swings can last for a matter of seconds through to a matter of days and everything in between.

Now, while BD is a mood disorder, BPD is actually a personality disorder like OCPD from last week - though some may argue that BP is some sort of threshold condition between the two.

Borderline Personality Disorder
BPD is a personality disorder (duh) which is characterized by variability of moods.

Symptoms include:

Inability to relate to other people and the world around them: Self explanatory.

Changing views of others: Sufferers can rapidly change between idolizing a demonizing a person depending on fear and disappointment.

Deep feelings of insecurity: This includes fear of abandonment and loss and will be exhibited in continually seeking reassurance even for small things; inappopropriate displays of anger towards those the sufferers deem responsible for their feelings are; fragile sense of self and their place in the world. These feelings of insecurity make their relationships with other difficult and the sufferer will often do anything to get their partner to stay.
This also means that criticism will hit them hard.

Persistent impulsiveness: Abusing alcohol and other drugs; spending excessively; gambling; stealing; driving recklessly, or having unsafe sex.

Confused, contradictory feelings: Frequent questioning and changing of emotions or attitudes towards others, and towards aspects of life such as goals, career, living arrangements or sexual orientation.

Self-harm: While this includes cutting, burning, and drug overdoses (both prescription and illegal) it also includes more "subtle" methods such as binge eating or starving, abusing alcohol/drugs, and repeatedly putting oneself in dangerous situations or attempting suicide. (Note that self-harm is considered a separate symptom to "trying to get people to stay")

Mood swings: The aforementioned "mood swings". These emotional outburst are often unsuitable and poorly regulated - think of the expression "crying over spilt milk" in the literal sense.

Manipulative: In their ways of using attention.


As with most disorders it's possible that sufferers to suffer from other disorders alongside BPD, or symptoms traditionally associated with other disorders. For instance those associated with anxiety or mood disorders such as excessive worrying and having panic attacks, obsessive behaviour, hoarding or having unwanted thoughts, feeling persistently sad, moving or talking slowly, losing sexual interest or having difficulty concentrating on simple tasks.
They may even experience psychotic symptoms such as delusions or false beliefs such as excessive paranoia.

And on that note we look to Millon's subtypes:
Discouraged borderline — including avoidant, depressive or dependent features
Impulsive borderline — including histrionic or antisocial features: this would easily fit in with those who seek attention in order to avoid abandonment
Petulant borderline — including negativistic (passive-aggressive) features
Self-destructive borderline — including depressive or masochistic features

As you can see, not every disorder allows for certain other disorders to feature in smaller capacities - for instance narcissism does not feature here. The "featured" disorder has to, well, I guess "get along" with the main one and it's overall theme - if you get what I mean. Like how they either reinforce the impulsiveness or the inner turmoil.

Much like many disorders a stigma comes attached to BPD - mostly that sufferers are manipulative attention-whores. It ought to be remembered that the reason for their actions is rooted in their disorder which causes them to feel lonely, desperate, and hopeless - they want the attention so they aren't lonely anymore but they can't help that. Obviously medication is a help but hardly a cure-all.

Also, just because of the sheer ridiculousness of it I will post that some feminists have a problem with the diagnosis of BPD as it fits with the "stereotypical hysterical woman". -facepalm-

Between 2% and 5% of the population will be effect by BPD in their lives.

Symptoms will typically first appear in mid-late teens or early adulthood. Women are 3 times more likely than men to be diagnosed.

Fun fact: The reason this was called "borderline" personality disorder was because it was originally used when the clinician was unsure of the correct diagnosis because the client manifested a mixture of neurotic and psychotic symptoms. Many clinicians thought of these clients as being on the border between neurotic and psychotic, and thus the term “borderline” came into use.

Those are the main features of BDP. So...
Even more elegant and finely crafted links which basically restate what I already said and the things I said I wouldn't cover!

We once more end on the International Classification of Disease by the World Health Organization ICD-10 who call it emotionally unstable disorder and have symptoms under two types:

F60.30 Impulsive type
At least three of the following must be present, one of which must be (2):

marked tendency to act unexpectedly and without consideration of the consequences;
marked tendency to quarrelsome behaviour and to conflicts with others, especially when impulsive acts are thwarted or criticized;
liability to outbursts of anger or violence, with inability to control the resulting behavioural explosions;
difficulty in maintaining any course of action that offers no immediate reward;
unstable and capricious mood.
It is a requirement of ICD-10 that a diagnosis of any specific personality disorder also satisfies a set of general personality disorder criteria.

F60.31 Borderline type
At least three of the symptoms mentioned in F60.30 Impulsive type must be present [see above], with at least two of the following in addition:

disturbances in and uncertainty about self-image, aims, and internal preferences (including sexual);
liability to become involved in intense and unstable relationships, often leading to emotional crisis;
excessive efforts to avoid abandonment;
recurrent threats or acts of self-harm;
chronic feelings of emptiness.
It is a requirement of ICD-10 that a diagnosis of any specific personality disorder also satisfies a set of general personality disorder criteria.

Reiterating the end of my last post - if you have any symptoms see professional healthcare people. Do not take weird internet quizzes.

I have realized that regular updating will become more difficult once studies start up again given how much reading some of these disorders take. However, I will do my best as usual but it may become fortnightly for a little while.

Til next week! (Hopefully!)

Disturbing the Disturbed: Obsessing over Perfection

This week, I shall discuss the difference between Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCDP).

Now, most of us are familiar with (unresearched) fiction's depiction of an OC sufferer - they're that person who is meticulously measuring every grain in making coffee and almost have a stroke whenever they see a pile of magazines that aren't perfectly in line.

Actually, the perfect example here would be Death The Kid from Soul Eater.

Death is obsessed with symmetry – his house is completely symmetric: posters are directly opposite each other on walls, etc. If his enemy is symmetric he will refuse to fight it (even letting himself get beaten half to death), but if it’s asymmetric he will destroy it. If anyone pointed out the asymmetric stripes in his hair he would have a tantrum and he fainted when he had to write out his name because the “k” could never be symmetric.
The point is – he is a typical example of non-researched fictional OCD (I’ll mention that they justify his madness later but he serves as a great example). However, fact varies greatly from fiction.

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder
This falls under what is known as an “anxiety disorder”. It is characterized by recurring intrusive/unwanted thoughts (a.k.a. obsessions) and repetitive behavioural/mental rituals (a.k.a. compulsions). Sufferers usually know that this is all rather irrational but they have a great deal of trouble controlling their obsessions and it’s hard to resist the compulsion.
The main idea is that the obsessions cause worry on the part of the sufferer and, obsessions being what they are, they have trouble trying to think of something else. This is where the compulsion comes in – it’s the sufferer trying to distract themselves from the obsession or lessen the effect of the obsession. If they don’t carry out their particular compulsion, anxiety will be experienced in the form of the obsession.

Common obsessions:
• thoughts of contamination
• repeated doubts
• need for orderliness – this one is the most common in fiction
• aggressive impulses
• sexual imagery – this one is actually rather common
• religion

Common compulsions:
• Checking
• Washing
• Ordering – also very common in fiction
• Requesting or demanding reassurance from other people ( e.g. 'Did I lock the door?')
• Praying
• Counting
• Repeating words silently

An interesting fact is that about 20% of OCD sufferers have a tic (sudden, repetitive, stereotyped, nonrhythmic movements [motor tics] and utterances [phonic tics] that involve discrete muscle groups), thus it could be related to Tourette Syndrome but this is yet to be confirmed. Also, about 3 out of 100 people will get OCD in their lives.

“Tics are movements or sounds "that occur intermittently and unpredictably out of a background of normal motor activity", having the appearance of "normal behaviors gone wrong". The tics associated with Tourette's change in number, frequency, severity and anatomical location. Waxing and waning—the ongoing increase and decrease in severity and frequency of tics—occurs differently in each individual. Tics also occur in "bouts of bouts", which vary for each person.”

A quick note on Tourette Syndrome is that while the most publicized symptom is Coprolalia (spontaneous swearing and other bad words/phrases), it actually occurs in only about 10% of patients. Echolalia (repeating the words of others) and palilalia (repeating one's own words) occur in a minority of cases. The most common motor tic is blinking, while the most common vocal tic is throat clearing.


Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder

To put it simply, OCPD sufferers are perfectionists and believe that no-one else can be trusted to complete a task properly. Sufferers of this anxious personality disorder are preoccupied (read: obsessed) with orderliness, perfectionism, and control. At first you may be thinking “Hey! What’s the difference between OCPD and OCD where the obsession is order?” however, while OCD sufferers know that their thoughts are intrusive/unwanted/wrong, OCPD sufferers believe that their thoughts are correct and hence do not try to suppress them or distract themselves from them. This can be a problem as they spend their early life ignoring/avoiding the symptoms – if they ever end up acknowledging the symptoms.

Some, but not all, OCPD sufferers show an obsession with cleanliness – not to be confused with domestic efficiency as paying too much attention to details can actually make daily activities difficult to accomplish.

Symptoms tend to start in early adulthood and may interfere with one’s ability to complete tasks due to their standards being too rigid – for instance, wanting something redone exactly to the instructions given and ignoring anything better/more efficient route. An example can be derived from Harry Potter: The Half-Blood Prince. If Harry was to work in a group assignment with someone with OCPD in Potions class and tried to use the Prince’s annotated text book, the OCPD sufferer would probably make Harry do the potion over again following the normal instructions, no matter how much better the other potion would have been – even if they saw the results to be better.

Other symptoms of OCPD that aren’t similar to those of OCD are:
• Excess devotion to work
• Inability to throw things away, even when the objects have no value
• Lack of flexibility
• Lack of generosity
• Not wanting to allow other people to do things
• Not willing to show affection
• The aforementioned reoccupation with details, rules, and lists
Another striking feature is that they tend to polarize their beliefs and actions and those of others – that is to say, set them on extreme scales such as “right” and “wrong” with very little in between. This sort of perception strains interpersonal relationships and the frustration can even result in violence (known as disinhibition). This probably contributes to why sufferers of OCPD tend towards pessimism, depression, and in extreme cases, suicide.


Actually, a rather good example of possible OCPD on TV is Monica from Friends – she’s an extreme perfectionist who seems to panic rather than get mad (most of the time), has an obsession with cleanliness and order, and even hoards a lot of stuff. She is not very flexible and I can recall her saying something like “Rules are good - they help contain the fun.” (I don’t recall the exact phrase) and has always shown strict adherence to the rules. Also, a recurring theme is that when she is performing a task she is reluctant to delegate or accept assistance because she thinks other people will do it wrong – unless she is bossing them around every step of the way. A dominant character trait is that she actually enjoys cleaning up.

Now, a fellow who will show up again in my blog is Theodore Millon – he developed a series of subtypes of different disorders. These subtypes are basically “dominant disorder with features of another disorder” – e.g. for the personality disorder of Narcissism there is the subtype of “unprincipled narcissism” which has features of Antisocial Personality Disorder, and for Antisocial Personality Disorder there is the subtype of “reputation-defending antisocial” which has features of Narcissism. (both of these disorders will be covered more extensively later)

Anyway, Millon’s subtypes for OCPD are
• conscientious compulsive—including dependent features.
• puritanical compulsive—including paranoid features.
• bureaucratic compulsive—including narcissistic features.
• parsimonious compulsive—including schizoid features. Resembles Fromm's hoarding orientation[20]
• bedeviled compulsive—including negativistic (passive-aggressive) features.
A quick summary, for the times being, is that
• Paranoid - Constant distrust and suspicion of others.
• Shizoid - Asocial. No concern for what others think of you. Little to no desire to form personal relationships of any sort.
• Narcissistic - Self-centered and thinks they are the Greatest Person Ever. Constantly need affirmation that they are, indeed, awesome.
• Dependent - the constant need to rely and depend on others. Find it difficult to make even very simple choices on their own.


Why do these two get mistaken for each other a lot? Apart from the similar names, of course. Well, as you can see, their symptoms follow the same basic pattern – compulsions caused their obsession – except in OCD the compulsion is to deal with the obsession tend to get very distressed with their actions while in OCPD it is to assist the obsession (perfection) and usually enjoy the task. I will mention that the two conditions can be suffered by the same person.
Sufferers of these disorders tend to be high achievers and feel “a sense of urgency about their actions”. They will have rigid routines and feel upset if someone interferes with them. One thing I didn’t know before researching this was that they may have trouble expressing their anger, thus choosing more appropriate emotions such as anxiety. This is why OCD is known as an anxiety disorder and OCPD as an anxious personality disorder.

However, as seen above, it’s when you look at the additional symptoms of OCDP that you really see the differences between the two disorders – this is where most fiction falls short.


Now, to end this post I will direct you to the World Health Organization's ICD-10. As is the case with most organizations, they like to use completely difference names to what everyone else learns. Here, OCDP is (F60.5) Anankastic personality disorder.

It is characterized by at least three of the following:
1. feelings of excessive doubt and caution;
2. preoccupation with details, rules, lists, order, organization or schedule;
3. perfectionism that interferes with task completion;
4. excessive conscientiousness, scrupulousness, and undue preoccupation with productivity to the exclusion of pleasure and interpersonal relationships;
5. excessive pedantry and adherence to social conventions;
6. rigidity and stubbornness;
7. unreasonable insistence by the individual that others submit exactly to his or her way of doing things, or unreasonable reluctance to allow others to do things;
8. intrusion of insistent and unwelcome thoughts or impulses.
Includes:
• compulsive and obsessional personality (disorder)
• obsessive-compulsive personality disorder
Excludes:
• obsessive-compulsive disorder
It is a requirement of ICD-10 that a diagnosis of any specific personality disorder also satisfies a set of general personality disorder criteria.

For some reason, whenever I read a page on mental/physical health it urges me to see a psychiatrist/doctor if I display symptoms so I guess I will say that too – if you think you may match the symptoms as listed by the World Health Organization I’d suggest getting a formal diagnosis before treating yourself. Internet quizzes are unreliable and can only give an indication – even then, if you were in an odd mood when taking the quiz your results can get really messed up.

An example is that when I take these quizzes I pretty much always rank highly on either Bipolar or Cyclothymia for the depressive illnesses, and for the personality disorder ones I typically score highly in Paranoid, Schizoid, and Schizotypal. However depending on my mood I have also gotten high results in Narcissism, Avoidant, Dependent, and Antisocial... on the same test.
So, I’m going to say that while the internet is a great place to find information you really need a qualified mental health specialist to make a diagnosis.

On a less serious note – my next post will take place over the next day or two as I am still writing it and we are experiencing a heat wave where I live and I’d rather not accidentally overheat my laptop if I don’t have to.

A Slight Delay

Well... this is embarassing.

Extenuating circumstances have meant that I have been unable to complete today's post - however I intend on posting twice next week in order to make up for it.

I will give fair warning that all the post titles will be some horrible joke/pun/odd-thing which I deem amusing or appropriate. Trust me, a warning is warranted.

Also, I should take this opportunity to say that come January I may end up having trouble meeting my weekly deadline as I will be doing extracurricular work for my university degree. On the brighter side, I will then be able to add Australian Company Law to the list of things I can muse over.

Of course I will try my best to make said deadlines, but not at the expense of my grades - one of the reasons I started this blog was to improve on my deadline-keeping skills so that my studies would improve.

(Hey, I've done pretty well so far. XD)

Anyways, see you next week.

Disturbing the Disturbed

As I have hinted at, I have an interest in mental disorders above that of most people I know (i.e. more than no interest) and one thing I have discovered while researching these disorders is how many times fiction, and real people, get it wrong.

 

Over the next few weeks I will put up a post explaining some of the common misconceptions that appear in fiction. I anticipate that the series will last about 6 weeks, provided I don't have some sort of pressing rant I'd like to get off my chest. In that case I may post twice in a week to keep to schedule depending on how enthusiastic I'm feeling.

 

The first post of this series will be on Wednesday and it's sequals will also be posted on Wednesdays. After the series ends I shall return to posting on Mondays for the most part.
(Any Monday posts before the end will likely be an aforementioned "pressing rant".)

 

Anyway, so that is all for now.

 

ADDENDUM:

 

When I discuss any "personality disorders" (it will be stated in their name) they must first satisfy the following criteria before a specific disorder can be assigned:

 

Under the DSM-IV:

• An enduring pattern of psychological experience and behavior that differs prominently from cultural expectations, as shown in two or more of: cognition (i.e. perceiving and interpreting the self, other people or events); affect (ie. the range, intensity, lability, and appropriateness of emotional response); interpersonal functioning; or impulse control.
• The pattern must appear inflexible and pervasive across a wide range of situations, and lead to clinically significant distress or impairment in important areas of functioning.
• The pattern must be stable and long-lasting, have started as early as at least adolescence or early adulthood.
• The pattern must not be better accounted for as a manifestation of another mental disorder, or to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g. drug or medication) or a general medical condition (e.g. head trauma).

 

Under the ICD-10:

• markedly disharmonious attitudes and behaviour, involving usually several areas of functioning, e.g. affectivity, arousal, impulse control, ways of perceiving and thinking, and style of relating to others;
• the abnormal behaviour pattern is enduring, of long standing, and not limited to episodes of mental illness;
• the abnormal behaviour pattern is pervasive and clearly maladaptive to a broad range of personal and social situations;
• the above manifestations always appear during childhood or adolescence and continue into adulthood;
• the disorder leads to considerable personal distress but this may only become apparent late in its course;
• the disorder is usually, but not invariably, associated with significant problems in occupational and social performance.

The ICD also adds that 'For different cultures it may be necessary to develop specific sets of criteria with regard to social norms, rules and obligations.'

 

Fair Weather Friends

This is another impromptu rant. About some newly ex-friends rather than the one I was unjustly mad with last times. This one does not result in unintentional philospical gems like the last one - it's just a rant. If you want the conclusion without the ranting, scroll to the last paragraph.

You know what's the problem with being mad at friends? You can't rant to another friend about them because you have very few ways of ensuring that the information doesn't get back to the friend you're ranting about.
Hence why I'm here - only one friend knows about this and she's extremely trustworthy.

Now, I had these two friends - one boy and one girl.

Now, the first one I would spend ages talking over his girl problems with him - he had a crush on a friend, you see. Anyway, he and this friend lived far away from eachother and she wasn't sure if she wanted to pursue a relationship with him. He would come to me and actually ask why he bothered talking to her. They had been friends for ages and he was thinking about dropping her because she didn't want to date him. He would come to me at least once a week with some problem about her and moaning about how he was incapable of change.
He was 17 - if you're incapable of change at 17 then you have problems. Anyway, I'd spend my time trying to give him advice and help (like reminding him that he is the girl's friend above all else) but if I even had a slight problem he'd make an excuse not to be available - like apparently needing to sleep at all times of day. The one time he went to give me any advice is when I confessed a crush on a different friend after which I got the advice of "Confess but don't pursue it" and used his relationship ship with his crush as an example of it being functional. Functional you say? I could have sworn I had spent the last 4 months listening to him complain about how hard it was. Needless to say, advice not taken.
The thing with this friend was that he'd only contact me when he had a problem. Any other pieces of contact would be him either making fun of my religion (Catholic - most of my friends are Athiests but he picked a fight about religion on fucking Easter - the most holy day on the calender. Worst timing ever - made worse by the fact that he's an ex-Catholic so he knew about that), being antagonistic, or doing the whole "it's not my fault that people don't think I'm funny" thing.

He also happens to be one of those assholes who will hear about what your plans are and say "well that won't work" but not actually say anything useful - as though he had some sort of golden gift of observation that only he could see that we might fail. Did he consider that we'd tried everything else and this was a last ditch attempt - nope. It's not like we told him that or anything - oh wait, we did.


I don't know what happened with the girl. She just decided to stop talking to me. Actually, she's the one I mentioned in the Pygmalion entry - so maybe she just didn't like that I didn't fit the model.

Now, I'll say a few things about me. I like weird things, as you may have noticed (trust me, it just gets weirder). I like monsters, crime shows, "cynical" fantasy, memes, and Alice Madness Returns. This friend did not like the things I liked - I did not mind this. She did. And I don't mean in "huh, well I don't like those things but it's okay if you do" - she was full on "I don't like these things and I don't like that you do and I don't understand why anyone would like these things". But for some reason she still wanted to be friends with me and I liked her so I didn't mind. Boy I was such a pushover.
I was not allowed to bring up any of those things while talking with her. Or near her. Or while hanging out with friends who liked that stuff while she was there. Even in online conversations she got pissed off with me for explaining a meme to a person who asked about it. Anyway, she got even more controlling. I'm a night owl - this was unacceptable. If she found any evidence that I was awake after 11:30pm she wouldn't let up. But I curbed my sleeping hours, and stuck to her other restrictions. The one thing I forgot (read a webcomic she didn't like) was held against me for over 6 months. Oh, and I brought up my crush in conversation maybe 3 to 5 times during our entire acquantaince (that's be less than once a month) and apparently I talked about him all the time.
Anyway, just last month all interactions become short and curt on her end, eventually just restricted to online stuff - all answered with "Yup" and "OK". Also, it's not like a bugged her every day or something - I thought she needed space so I gave her a few days between communications, and then a week, etc. Actual increase. Same answers - "Yup" and "OK".

What probably actually annoys me the most here is the overlap between the two friends. The other thing that the two would contact me to complain about was each other. As a matter of fact when I asked the first one if he had talked to the girl he had said that she had gotten distant - except when I asked yesterday to find out that she had become quite "affable". Well, apparently not affable to me - unless the definition has radically changed in the last month.
What was extremely annoying was that he was acting as though it was my fault that I was getting tired of being screwed around for - this is the guy who I had to reassure almost fortnightly that just because someone disagrees with you once it doesn't mean you can't be friends. Oh, also the same guy who complained that listening to someone's problems more than once a fortnight was emotionally draining... you know, as he complained to me once a week.

What do these friend have in common? I'll tell you. The both view their problems as worse than every else's - admittedly they do have problems that other people don't have (the girl especially) but they veiw every single one of their problems as far worse than everyone else's. If you came to them with a problem and wanted to vent you would get belittled, as though they were just waiting for you to have a problem so they could get even with all the help you've provided them. If you were ranting they would take even the slightest expression of anger and use it as a sign of your "mental instability" - even saying that you hated someone was a problem.
They both view you liking anything they don't like as a personal offense, and the same goes for not liking anything they like (e.g. the guy likes beer, I don't and I like chocolate and he doesn't. I said "beer isn't my thing" and he gave me a detailed desrciption on how he finds chocolate disgusting).
While both Athiests, unlike my other Athiest friends with whom I have a mutual respect they will say "sure I respect you" and then proceed to tell me why they think I'm an idiot. There's a difference between respecting someone's beliefs and disagreeing with them and what they did - I respect a lot of beliefs but disagree with them, the friends know I take a different stand and we don't go and rub it in each other's faces. Anyway, they would use this on any belief they disagreed with - for instance neither like the notion of marriage, so while they would say "I'm not telling you want to do but - [long rant on why they think marriage is stupid and anyone who gets married is stupid]". It wouldn't even be diplomatic - it would actually use words like stupid. THIS IS NOT RESPECTING ANYONE'S OPINION IN ANYTHING EXCEPT SAYING "I RESPECT YOUR OPINION".

Anyway, the thing is I didn't notice half this stuff until after the event because in between they would be nice and friendly - but not giving.

If you've read this far, there is no point in being an all-giving entity. When you have friends, no matter how much you like them and even if you think they've had it rough so deserving of an ear, make sure they give a little too. If they don't then you're just being taken for granted or villified in some way that you don't know about yet. It doesn't take a lot to show another person that you appreciate their presence (hey, I smile when a friend links me to a youtube clip they think I may like) - so if they can't even manage that then you should really reconsider the friendship before it rips you to pieces. I lost too many tears over those two.

What's Your Sign?

Astrology - many people like this pseudoscience and believe in it's ability to predict the future and a person's personality. I admit that occasionally you can even see shared personality traits within a group, but then that may have something to do with those I socialize with (I'm sure all Libra's aren't bossy little know-it-alls - funnily enough I've never seen that written in an astrology book).

I was just going to say that there are many different versions of astrology, all taking the planets and constellations into account. So, I was thinking why not see how many star signs there actually are?

For the sake of simplicity, I won't go into numerology and such and stick just to those that depend on the stars.

This leaves us with 4 kinds: the Western Zodiac, the Chinese Zodiac, planetary influences outside of your Western Sign, and the Lunar cycle.

The Western/Roman Zodiac is the one most of us are familiar with and varies between the months: Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, and Pisces.

The Chinese Zodiac depends on one's year of birth in accordance to the Lunar Calender: Rooster, Dog, Boar/Pig, Rat, Ox, Tiger, Rabbit, Dragon, Snake, Horse, Sheep/Goat, and Monkey. I will mention that like the Western Zodiac begins with Aries, the Chinese actually begins with the Rat but I was listing them in order of which of the WZ signs they should be associated: e.g. Aries = Rooster. (This is the correlation I was taught but I have read many different versions.)
However, these guys have a couple of additional factors: firstly, depending on which "Year of the ANIMAL" you were born in, your element will be different from someone born in another year. The possible elements are Wood, Fire, Earth, Metal, and Water.
The second factor is "Yin" or "Yang" - this varies between what a sign is naturally, and whether you are male or female. For instance the Rooster is naturally Yang, but the Sheep is Yin - once again your gender/year will change this.

Next up we have planetary influences - these correspond to the Western Zodiac with Aries and Scorpio being ruled by Mars (the latter also getting Pluto in recent years), Taurus and Libra getting Venus, Gemini and Virgo going to Mercury, Cancer going to the Moon, Leo to the Sun, Sagittarius and Pisces getting Jupiter (the latter also Neptune), and finally Capricorn and Aquarius being ruled by Saturn (the latter being joined with Uranus).
However depending on where in the sky these planets are you will get the influence of yet another sign. Except the sun... in that case it matters what time of day you're born... which also matters to everyone else according to other books.

And that's not even getting into those who are born on the cusp of two signs.

Next the lunar cycle - it has approximately 29 days in it and, depending on who you ask, are all very important. I, however, would prefer to just say that there are 9 main parts: new moon, waxing cresent, first quarter, waxing gibbous, full moon, waning gibbous, last quarter, waning cresent, new moon, and somewhere in there there can be a lunar eclipse.

So, now we will have MATHS! Yay! My favourite subject! To simplify the formulas I will include what time of day you're born (separated into 12 houses), directly link Yin/Yang to gender, and also assume that for the signs with two ruling planets that they are in the same segment of the sky at the same time (slightly justified as during the Scorpio month Mars is in the same sign as Pluto... supposedly.)
For the lunar cycle calculations we will only include new moon, waxing cresent, waxing gibbous, full moon, waning gibbous, waning cresent, and the lunar eclipse for the sake of fairness. So 6.

First, just helping your vocabulary:
A combination is when you have a set of events/numbers/etc where the order does not matter. A permutation is where the order does matter.
"My fruit bowl has a combination of bananas, oranges, apples, and grapes."
"The combination to the safe is 593".
In the first instance it is a combination - we really don't care what order the fruits come in. So it only calculates "one" order.
In the second instance we do care what the order is as 395 or 935 certainly wouldn't work. We often call it a combination but it is in fact a permutation. So it calculates every possible order.

Let's go through all the combinations and permutations, shall we?
The sign of Leo shall be calculated separately as it doesn't have the "outside" factors. In order to find a combination, we must multiply put all the factors.

Here are the functions.

So, there are 1,149,120 star signs according to this.

Now, the world's population as at 2010 was 6,840,507,000. So divide that by 1,149,120 and we get 5,952.82216 people for each starsign.

What I'd really love to see is if someone actually did individual predictions for each of these signs and then published it! X) Then I'd have a better measure of it's accuracy. :P

Pygmalion

An unscheduled update for the purpose of venting a little.

Have you ever been chatting with a friend, having fun and all, and then they go and make some joke or reference that you don't get or misinterpret?
Anyway, when people don't just laugh it off and behave in a sociable fashion there's that awkward silence that follows. I hate that awkward silence - it is extremely effective of killing all the fun you were having. Especially if said conversation is online and then they disappear after the awkward silence - note that, while difficult, I do know people who can disappear almost as effecively in face-to-face conversations.

The thing is, the very act of disappearing can make the other person feel like they did something wrong. Now, let's face it - no-one was wrong here, just crossed wires... not even that. And maybe they feel like an idiot (who knows) but the fact is I don't know and if we had just continued chatting it's possible that we both could have left in a good mood. I don't know, maybe they did leave in a good mood - the point is that the disappearing is annoying.
Well, maybe annoying isn't the right word - I tend to feel really tired and irritated in a I-need-rest way when people annoy me unintentionally.

(Of course said friend won't see this seeing as you don't know about this blog and if you do see this it will probably be so far in the future that you will have forgotten.
Stupid boy.
[Note: The friend is not stupid because he is a boy - he is a friend who is at this current moment stupid and just happens to be a boy. Just clearing that up - most of my friends are boys. Actually for the most part this friend is awesome - I've just had too many people pull this to not have a small tantrum at my computer screen.])

(And no, I don't know what could have been said afterwards... just not disappearing. ._.)

Funnily enough this friend doesn't seem to think I have a temper - probably because they've never seen me mad at people and disappear when I'm mad at them before they are alerted to that fact. -_-

In my opinion one should never assume that someone is happy all the time or never gets mad - it will only lead to trouble. Think about it: if you honestly think that someone hasn't got a temper then your behaviour will be different. Hell, even if you think so jokingly - these things still have a subtle effect on your mind. You become less careful - I mean, you know what annoys your friends, yes? So you don't approach those subjects for the most part. If you act as though said friend doesn't have a temper then you don't have any reason to not approach the subjects. Eventually they won't take it anymore.
Society discourages showing your temper, and a lot of people have reasons to hide it. For instance I have a very bad temper - when I'm mad stuff flies. So, naturally, I don't want people to see that side of me. I don't want to accidentally hurt my friends or scare them off. So, it's hidden beneath a goodly amount of smiles and snark. I'd imagine that a few other people do this. It's like... poking at a pet cat - yeah, for the most part she'll ignore you and try to sleep but one day she'll turn around and try to scratch your face off. Also, it's bloody insensitive to your friend. I'm not saying "thread on eggshells", just that when you do know a person's hang-ups don't press them. You may see this as logical but I know plenty of people who cannot grasp this simple comment.

On a similar note (related to the "don't assume a person doesn't have a temper" thought), just don't put people up on pedestals. A human is a human - they have their good points, and they have their flaws. It makes them... them.

I have been put on at least pedestal twice that I can think of - people aren't meant to be on them. We can't balance.
The first example is a guy who had a crush on me - he was really sweet but he didn't know me very well and he refused the idea that I could have flaws. No matter what I said or did, it was taken as Gospel or in the most flattering light. His self-esteem suffered because he was comparing everything he did to this fantasy girl he had built up. Occasionally it'd become obvious that I didn't measure up, even in a couple of simple things - like not knowing about a famous failed acquisition. He was quite disappointed that I didn't know.
The second example is an old friend of mine because I was one of their nicer friends. It got to the point that any mistake I made, no matter how small, was a great betrayal. No matter how many promises I kept or favours I did, it wouldn't measure up to the few I forgot. This is because my failings proved that I didn't fit the role they had chosen for me. And because of how mad and sad they'd get I'd try to change - not just small things, like remembering they don't like some meme, but the bigger things too. You can only change so much before you lose you.

"I'm a snapshot of the person that you think I ought to be."

Putting people on pedestals does quite a few things: it can damage your self-esteem (as in the first example), it sets you up for disappointment, it puts undeserved pressure on the other person, and, most importantly, it doesn't make them a person anymore. It makes them a statue, a painting, a snapshot, some other appropriate metaphor. You're no longer dealing with a person whom you could be friends or lovers with - you're dealing with a fantasy.
You're Pygmalion and you've fallen in love with your statue - the person in front of you is just something you're trying to carve to fit it.

Actually, that metaphor is quite a good one - it shows how wrong the situation is. The person should be the model on which you base your statue - not the other way around. Even in real life cases of art, where the masterpiece is more aesthetically pleasing than the model is, the artist never tries to make the model live up to the statue - he found a model to suit his idea. In terms of people, you don't find just anyone and try to fit them to what you want them to be - you find a person who fills that need just the way they are. And sometimes you find someone a person who fills a place you didn't know needed filling. I like it when that happens. :)

Anyway, I think when you meet people you shouldn't look at them through rose-tinted glasses. When you do so, you're just looking at an illusion. I'm not saying actively look for their flaws, but just... keep an eye out for them. A person's flaws explains their personality and behaviour as much as their strengths do and it is only by getting to know both that you will get to know the person. Assumption of anything means that you're not looking at something anymore.

"People should be doubted. Trust is giving up on trying to understand others."

This quote comes from the Liar Game - it was told to me by the friend I was mad at when I started this post... who, incidentally, I'm not mad at anymore. Realizing that I may have put them on a small pedestal... at least for the day - it was a pretty annoying day. And yeah, I was probably a bit irrational at the beginning - but I'm lucid now and that's good. Funny how venting does that - much better than bottling it up until it becomes an actual problem.

Also, just because you acknowledge the flaws it doesn't mean you have to like them - just that you have friends with flaws you don't mind or can at least tolerate. No-one's perfect.

Huh... this post actually ended up kinda informative after all.

... I don't have to give my friend indirect credit for the part of this post that was actually useful, do I? :P

Blood Calls For Blood

Well, not really. But kinda. Allow me to explain.

Okay, for some reason my posts have been sort of turning into me dumping all my thoughts on a particular matter together, even if it is a collection of links and explanations. I guess it's because it helps me clarify things in my own mind. Nevertheless, we continue.

Now, anyone who has read a "trashy romance novel", watched a soap opera, the odd crime drama, or picked up a mythology book knows that siblings or other relatives "hooking up" is no rare thing in fiction. However, none of these things tend to go into the psychology of it - or at least explaining that there is psychology behind it. I'm going to spend this post explaining that there are in fact theories behind this behaviour and siting examples to prove my point. I've actually found works of fiction that work this into the story in an interesting way because the author actually understands the psychology behind it.

The first effect is called Genetic Sexual Attraction, which is exactly what it says on the tin - attraction to those one is genetically related to... who they first meet as adults. Often this happens as the result of adoption, infidelity, etc - basically circumstances that stop the siblings/relatives from meeting before adulthood or, in many cases, even knowing of their relationship.

There are a couple of theories behind why this happens. Surveys find that people commonly find that faces similar to their own are more attractive - usally such things are hereditary. In 2004 Bereczkei argued that children "imprint" on the opposite sex parent and hence go after people with similar interests and personality traits. However there is a great deal of debate over this as we don't know if such traits are inheritable and to what extent. Anyway, if inheritable they will likely stick to close relatives.
Truth be told, I'm very divided on that particular issue (whether or not personalities/interests are inheritable) and am likely to go into detail in another post.

Now, you're probably wondering what I meant by "imprinting" and if you've read/watched Twilight you will recognize it from Breaking Dawn (whether or not you are smiling or cringing at the reference is subjective), however the term "describe[s] situations in which an animal or person learns the characteristics of some stimulus". The most common version is filial imprinting where the child!animal takes on the characteristics/behaviours of the parent!animal. Such situations include those were an animal of one species spends it's "childhood" with animals of another so it grows to act like them - for instance I owned a cat which thought it was a dog. Next type is sexual imprinting, which is where child!animals learn to be attracted to traits that the animals that raised them possess - a contributor to Bereczkei's theory.

Finally we take on the other side of this argument - the Westermarck Effect. This is reverse sexual imprinting, and why children don't normally feel sexual attraction to siblings, parents, and other close relatives. It works on the basis that where two people who live in close proximinity during the first few years of life they will become sexually desensitized to each other. This has been observed in many situations, such as the Israeli kibbutzim, such that basically where children are raised in groups there is a very small number of marriages between members of that group in the long run. In the mentioned example, of nearly 3,000 marriages only 14 happened in the same group, and none of them were raised together during the first 6 years of life. Therefore children who are raised together in the first 6 years of life are unlikely to become sexually attracted to each other at a later point.

What I like about these theories combined is that they debunk other theories... like Freud's (dude, not everything comes down to sex). While Freud argued that all children lust after family members based on his having an "erotic reaction" on seeing his mother dress, Westermarck pointed out that Freud was raised by a wetnurse and thus never desensitized to her.

Anyway, many historical accounts of this can be seen. In ancient Egypt, in order to preserve the royal blood (which was carried through the women) royalty used to raise boys and girls separately before marrying the next Pharoah to his (half)sister - since they never met in the first 6 years, the Westermarck effect was avoided. However in Europe at some point they attemped the same thing only to have the King and Queen refuse to breed because they saw each other as brother and sister due to being raised together.
This is also why marriages between cousins were so much more popular as a combined affect of both effects - not being raised together during the critical phase and being genetically similar enough to cause GSA.

For the sake of fairness I will mention that the genetic side-effects of inbreeding between cousins have been mostly exaggerated the likelihood of birth defects is only 4% compared to the usual 2%. However, as you can see in the British royal family Haemophilia has been concentrated due to a long history of inbreeding.

Actually, Fridge Brilliance in that the Greek Pantheon's notorious inbreeding actually makes sense since none of them were raised together, since of the first six gods Hestia, Demeter, Hera, Hades, Poseidon, and Zeus all but the youngest were devoured by Chronos and Zeus was raised by nympths on Crete. Therefore none of them were technically raised together so it would be natural for Zeus to be attracted to his sisters (having married Hera, having Persephone with Demeter, and Hestia was apparently so desired that she pledged herself to chastity). Depending on the "being eaten by Daddy" situation, Poseidon's attraction to Demeter may or may not be justified, but Hades's attraction to Persephone would certainly fall under here due to this effect since nobody ever visited him (as well as the fact that he lived a dull existence and she was just the perfect ray of sunshine).

What, ironically, makes less sense is the Egyptian Pantheon unless their gods were raised the same way as their royalty - I haven't read anything to specify so.

Anyway, hopefully this has proved enlightening in some way or at least gave you something weird to think about... which, let's face it, is clearly my main intention.

Battle of the Sex Hormones

No, this isn't about fighting hormones - this about the two main sex hormones: testosterone and oestrogen (or estrogen) - the "male" and "female" hormones respectively.

Now, I know that not everyone knows that these hormones are not restricted by gender - one episode of Charmed made the mistake of having two coroners shocked that the female "corpse" had testerone in its system [facepalm]- so I'll give a quick summary here:

Testosterone - male body produces 10 times more than the female, but the female body is more sensitive to it.
Effect in males: Developes testis and prostate; promotes increased muscle, bone mass, deeper voice, and body hair; too much results in aggressive behaviour and atropy of the testes; lowers during fatherhood; makes organs like the heart and liver bigger.
Effect in females: Regulates menstrual cycle.
Effect in both: Essential overall health, and prevents oesteoporosis. Too much in females will produce some of the male results. Mental affects include higher risk tolerance, and higher levels are speculated to ward off dementia and Alzheimer's Disease. There are also suggestions of a "curvilinear or even quadratic relationship between spatial performance", as well as relations to attention-span and memory.

Oestrogen - there are three main types (estrone (E1), estradiol (E2), and estriol (E3)) which are active during menopause, non-pregnant/non-menopasusal stages, and pregnancy. So, the big one is estradiol.
Effect in males: Low levels are speculated to cause OCD, too much will give men breasts and lower libido; increases in sympathetic pregnancy; used to treat prostrate cancer in certain situations.
Effect in females: Develops breasts, hips, regulates fertility (ovulation); promotes finer hair and smoother skin; low levels lead to poor mental health; once breast cancer is established, high levels feed it; increase fat stores; accelerate metabolism; reduce muscle mass;
Effect in both: Helps wound healing. Too much in males will produce some of the female results.

Admittedly oestrogen doesn't appear to play that great a part in male bodies but it's there.
I could stop here but the actual reason I wanted to bring this up was because I was rewatching a couple of my favourite episodes of House: Skin Deep and Act Your Age. In these two episodes the hormones of oestrogen and testosterone feature as the central players. I rather like House as it accurately portrays medical disorders and I get to watch an intelligent jerkass prove why he's the best doctor.

Every fetus is a girl to begin with and then depending on if it is XY or XX, it will then change internally - the male/female hormones of testerone/oestrogen will then give the fetus secondary sexual characteristics, like the testes dropping in males.

In Act You Age the two child patients are suffering from "Precocious puberty" due to too much testosterone from a certain, ahem, "medication" their father is taking. The symtoms in the boy are extreme aggression and a heightened libido - which results in the rather amusing incident of an 8 year old pinching the female doctor's bottom and tackling (and biting) the male doctor out of jealousy.
The little girl, 6 years old, I think, gets her period, hair in places, double vision, hot flashes, and a stroke - basically the symptoms of an old woman.

What can be said for the girl is that she got puberty with none of the femininity and then proceeded to get all the symptoms of a post-menopausal woman - because there is no oestrogen here. In the boy's case he is now "macho", kind of like an animal when you think about it - territorial towards "his" females to the point of violence. It's okay, I talk about oestrogen bad points next.

In Skin Deep the patient is a 15 year old female model, who is revealed to have cancer on her left testes. Yep, she is in fact a male - one who suffers from pseudo-male-hermaphroditism due to Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. I mentioned that everyone is born as a girl and then they change; in this case the child is insensitive to testosterone and hence doesn't make the big changes. They still get testes but they don't drop and they don't develop in a male way. Instead they are entirely oestrogen, even more feminine than women. Perfect skin and shape and they never get a period.
However, just like testosterone, there are mental effects - in the case of too much oestrogen while the patient was docile, she was as manipulative as hell. This sort of figure appears in literature as the femme fatale, or the "seductress" in the Three Faces of Eve.

I'm not entirely sure why I wrote up this note but I find it amusing on how the extreme effects of each sex hormone on their main gender results in the undesirable literary archetypes of the possessive violent male and the manipulative vamp, who, traditionally, always lose to the main character or never get the boy/girl.

I dunno, maybe it's everything in moderation making its way to the surface in a strange way - funny since these archetypes appeared before people even knew about these hormones and their effects.

Fear versus Actuality

I just thought this was funny and sad at the same time - it's a list of fears and the realistic chance of them eventuating. Found in a book published in 2006.

Deadly shark attack: 1 in 280 million
Deadly antrax attack: 1 in 57 million
Deadly airplane accident: 3 million
Shot by a sniper: 1 in 517,000
Losing your job: 1 in 252 (this is pre-GFC though)
Home burglary at night: 1 in 181
Developing cancer: 1 in 7
Catching foodborne illness this year: 1 in 4
Cathing a sexually transmitted disease: 1 in 4
Developing heart disease: 1 in 4
Dying five to ten years earlier if you're overweight: 1 in 4
Death from tobacco-related illnesses: 1 in 2

Funny: Not only are you more likely to catch a deadly case of anthrax than get killed by a shark, even more likely to get shot by a sniper than die in an airplane crash. It's amusing to think that we should all be more worried about little red lights being directed at our heads over giant fish with multiple teeth.

Sad: Why do people spend so much time worrying about the improbabilities in life, when there are real things to be afraid of that can actually be prevented by healthier living and regular medical check-ups?
Instead we're hearing the Jaws soundtrack play in our heads everytime we go to the beach.

Self Fulfilling Prophecy

When one hears the phrase "self fulfilling prophecy" most mythology buffs will immediately think of the story of Oedipus - the boy who heard that he will kill is father and marry his mother, prompting him to leave town to spare his parents who were actually his adoptive parents and thus actually end up killing his biological father and marrying his biological mother. There is also the fact that the whole reason he was left on that hillside was because his father heard a prophecy that he would be killed by his son.

Actually come to think of it an awful lot of kings get that prophecy thrown at them.

Another example is Paris of Troy - Paris was a shephard after his parents abandoned him to the wilderness because the queen dreamt that she gave birth to a firebrand who would bring Troy to ashes. Zeus chose Paris to judge the the beauty contest that the goddesses were having because he was a humble shepherd. If not for that prophecy Troy wouldn't have burned. (Actually, the Trojan war can be traced back to a curse many generations prior on another household but suffice it to say that that the stars were not aligned favourably. :P)

One final example is actually from Norse mytholgy - Odin was told that Loki and his children would bring about the end of the world. So what did he do? Lock up all of Loki's kids and have everyone shun the guy. Gee, I wonder why the god of Mischief slowly got evil and at least three of his kids grow to hate Odin. (Fun fact: Loki was actually benevolent - one myth I stumbled across actually had a poor couple ask Tyr and Odin for help in saving their sons from giants only to have those two give up after failing once. When they prayed to Loki, he actually fixed the problem permanently.)

Anyway, you are probably wondering why I related these tales to you. It's because these "prophecies" aren't just restricted to mythology or fantasy - they are very much applicable to real life.
If you look at each of the above examples the prophecies aren't predicting happy dreams of fluffy bunnies and spiders - they're all about destruction, death, and general negativity. They're about fear. We may as well call them "self fulfilling fears", which is actually what I wish to talk about.

Now, a lot of us have a fear of some sort: I, myself, have a fear of falling. (No, not a fear of heights - that would be irrational...) However, the fears I wish to discuss are the psychological ones (yes, I know all fears are psychological but I mean the ones that aren't a fear of a physical thing... or lack of thing). For instance a fear of heights falling is hardly self fulfilling.

This is hardly a new concept - it's all over the place in sociology (and time travel). I'm just putting it in one place and chatting about it. (It is also in economics but I will cover that subject in more depth in a later post.)

Since most people are familiar with the Pygmalion effect (treat someone one way, or expect someone to do something and they will meet your expectations - e.g. Loki) we won't dwell on it, mainly because it's the Reflexivity Theory that is most relevant here. It's where you believe something will happen, so you react in accordance to that belief thus bringing about that belief (also present in the Loki myth). (Economics example is that if you believe prices will fall you will sell - this causes supply to increase and demand to either decrease or remain unchanged, either way the prices will fall.)

I will use three examples of fear to explain:

Fear 1: Abandonment.
Now someone thinks that their friends or family members will eventually leave them - perhaps this belief is founded, perhaps not but that's not the point. Depending on the individual there would be two more common reactions - clinginess (must hold onto them while I can) or distance (mustn't get attached because they'll go away). Blah blah clinginess makes people want to have their space blah blah - discussed to death. In the case of distance this makes the people around that person wonder what is wrong but the fact that they keep getting stonewalled will make them think that they are not wanted and so the will eventually leave. There we go, "abandonment".

Fear 2: Not Good Enough
This is one I saw recently. Now, keep in mind that the idea of "good enough" is subjective. The person believes that they "ruin good people" or "don't deserve good people" - good being their own definition. So, they settle for what they believe are "bad people" because it's what they think they deserve and further indulge in "bad behaviour" - rending thing unworthy (in their minds) of said "good people". Eventually they may actually become unappealing to the "good people" if these behaviours are that opposite those of the "good people" (not saying the "good people will look down on them but just that they don't want to date them - there's a difference). Self-fulfilling.
(The main thing in this one is that they really believe this and that nothing they can do will ever make them worthy - that is their fear.)

Fear 3: Crushing Rejection (pun!)
Suppose you have a crush on a friend, maybe a new friend. Now, obviously you really like them and you don't want to scare them off by declaring it. You want to be sure first. So you wait a while and guess what? You really do like them. But you also like them as a friend and, just like before, you don't want to ruin the friendship. At the same time you don't want to be stuck in the "friend zone" for eternity but the "ruin the friendship" fear is greater. So you don't say anything and the crush gets worse as you get more and more attached and hence more and more afraid to confess. This one isn't so much self fulfilling as it is self stagnanting. A vicious cycle where the fear feeds itself.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't be wary of these things, but being afraid of them results in more harm than good... such as the fear itself or stagnation. A wariness would be much better served - so that the first prson doesn't push people away, so that the second seeks to correct what they see as "bad behaviour" rather than fall into it, and so that the third isn't so paralyzed.

The last thing I said about Fear 3 was that the fear feeds itself - the same goes for them all. Fear 1 gets more rejection, and Fear 2 becomes more "unworthy". They all dig themselves into a deeper pit from which it becomes very difficult to emerge from.

Fear... it's pointless. Wariness isn't - you should be cautious. Fear for your life is ok - that's instinct. But these other fears feed themselves and grow. Even "fear of failure" results in a crash and burn scenario from overwork, or failure at something they neglected (usually a personal life). But yeah - fear is self fulfilling, so don't give it the satisfaction. As you can see with the above examples, it's very difficult to get out once you're in.

(P.S. It's Monday here so... I'm still adhering to my schedule.)

Addendum: Fear 3 is not a bad thing so long as it's weariness and not fear. Not confessing because you're scared is silly; not confessing for other reasons is not. For instance, if you know your friend doesn't feel the same way (duh), if you're not sure how they feel (this is not a "scared" thing - the fact is that they may feel pressured into reciprocating those feelings or it could get awkward for them. It should be more about how your news will effect them.), or, and this is a nice one, you are happy being "just" friends with them and value that over the possibility of a romantic relationship. There is nothing wrong with friendship after all.

I just felt I had to clarify that.

A Late Halloween Note

Ah-ha! I wasn’t late – I said Monday or Wednesday. Today is Wednesday.

Now, had my brain actually processed the fact that it was Halloween while I was writing last week’s post, I probably would have posted this one to be thematic. However, my brain did not.
Partially because I am still researching my other drafts and partially because I am procrastinating exam study I present to you an observation I made when I was around 11 or 12 on vampires after attending a science talk. See how this would have been fitting last week?

Firstly I shall state that this is my musing on an unrealistic topic – I occasionally like to dissect myths and then consider reconstructing them. Now, setting sparklepires aside, I shall list the "facts" about vampires (the typical ones anyway – not going into every mythology):
• They are undead, a.k.a. they have no pulse and don’t breathe yet can move around and talk and apparently think.
• They never age.
• They can be killed either by a wooden stake to the heart, a rod of hot iron to the heart, or decapitation.
• They drink blood.
• They are typically created by the body of the deceased being possessed by some sort of demon. (This is supported by the belief that warlocks and some murderers would become vampires after death as they were in league with demons.)
•• (Also babies who were born with hair, an extra/missing toe/finger, or teeth were also destined to be vampires.)
••• (So according to folklore I should be a shape-changing vampire. Man do I feel cheated.)

Now, 11 year old me came up with this idea: vampires don’t age because they don’t breathe. Note that we mention nothing of decay – that’s clearly magic. (Or the chemical anomaly that occurs in some bodies causing the body not to decay, like the “Incorruptible Saints” in Catholic religion but does sometimes occur outside of recognized sainthood.)
Back on track! Now, the vampire, being dead, does not breathe nor have a heartbeat. As humans we need to breathe in order for our bodies to absorb oxygen into our blood for our hearts to then pump to our muscles and organs. However, oxygen is both our necessity and our killer – oxygen free radicals (all free radicals) destroy cells. The cell destruction causes us to age.

(For those of you who don’t know what a free radical is, it is a molecule that rips off parts of other cells to complete itself. So eating certain foods "complete" the radical so it won't need your cells. Read up on oxygen free radicals here - it's more scientiffic.)

In short, oxygen free radicals cause us to age, thus breathing causes us to age. It causes us to live, but it also causes us to age. Vampires however don’t need that pesky oxygen in order to “live” so they don’t need to age.

Now, I’ll drag garlic into this – garlic is an anti-oxidant like green tea and coffee. Except vampires don’t hate green tea and coffee. So why we eat garlic because (a) yummy!, (b) we’re Italian, (c) we like to take care of ourselves and eliminate those nasty oxygen free radicals, or (d) we are a male who wants to increase our fertility [which links in nicely with the second half of this post], vampires don’t need to do any of the above. They only drink our blood, they’re probably Romanian (I jest on both this comment and (b) of course), they don’t need to take care of themselves – they’re freaking immortal, and it’s highly unlikely that they want kids in the traditional sense. So, the only reason they would eat garlic is if they wanted bad breath.

Clearly vampires are so vain that even bringing the vile food near them would cause panic. :P
(For all the benefits of garlic see here - it's an awesome food.)


And now, in a surprise twist (not), I reveal that the idea of the Dhamphyr or “half-vampire” has mythological –and not Hollywood-squealing-fangirl- grounds. Now while it is so much fun to make fun of the fact that Edward could never have bedded Bella due to the lack a heartbeat thus no blood flow thus no erection, this idea of vampires going around and bedding people is rooted in mythology. In Slavic mythology was believed that if a man became a vampire, his first act as a member of the undead would be to seek out his wife/girlfriend/love-interest and, well, do the deed. Now, someone funny may insert a rigor mortis joke here but they may actually be on to something.
(The Roma had female vampires instead, I will mention.)

The myths do generally agree that this was the first act a male vampire would perform and rigor mortis sticks around for 24 hours. However this would assume one becomes a vampire immediately after death, and not two or three days later as stated in other myths. We would also be assuming that every other muscle in the body is unaffected. So that’s just dumb – vampires cannot have sex, let alone have children. (Hence it would be pointless for them to eat garlic.)

Not that this logical gem has stopped people from thinking this, and I don’t just mean in fiction.

Now, there are actually documented cases (mainly in Romania) of men tricking/scaring women into going to bed with them by pretending to be a vampire and later getting caught out for it, so (assuming that all these girls weren’t complete idiots) there were cultures that stated that this myth was indeed true. (Like the aforementioned Slavs and Roma.)
The likely cause of this myth were (grieving) widows being “consoled” by male friends and finding themselves in awkward positions when the baby bump presented – saying that one’s vampire husband came back from the cemetery and left them a parting gift is a nice easy solution. It would also explain why the “vampires” don't usually make a return visit in the reports, while in the myths their fidelity varies. It could also be used as an "explanation" for girls losing their virginity before marriage while saving their virtue.

... Hmmmm, I should mention that the sex-education part of my post was a realization I had at 16 rather than 12. Also that I did not intend for it to last that long. And no, I won’t be going into the possible causes of the vampire myth – that’s what Wikipedia is for. I just wanted to point how it made weird sense for a myth that predated that medical discovery.
And so the myth lies dissected, the student too lazy to sew it back up...

And, after that bout of weirdness, I shall disappear again until next week – most likely Wednesday. Perhaps I’ll study in the meantime... or maybe work on the next post. Ah, procrastination, what would I do without you?

Guilty Minds

A musing about guilt, this was sort of inspired by a friend of mine more recently as well as a few observations and general experience.

Now we all know the feeling of guilt, right? It's that thing where you've done something and you feel bad about it and would like to make up for it. Not regret, that's where you wish you hadn't - I've felt guilty about lots of things but wouldn't want to undo it. Well, maybe change how I did it but moving on!

I'm not going to go into any details on the exact situation that lead to this thought and just, well, dive right in.
You see... I've had so many people throw around this "guilty" expression while decribing different types of feelings or situations. To me, the term "guilt" is just too wide-reaching, or at least not defined well enough such that its meaning has been diluted... so now I'm trying to sort it. I like sorting things - it makes me think I have some measure of control over things. But enough of me, now for my so-called reasoning.

There are four different kinds of guilt, of which I'd only call one of them proper guilt. Now, keep in mind here I'm trying to talk about the actual guilt experienced rather then being emotionally manipulated into feeling guilt.

Proper guilt, how I see it, is when you do something bad and you know you shouldn't have and you're sorry that did that bad thing. This is regardless of whether you've wronged someone or not. It's where you do something and then at some later point (preferably sooner than later) go "Oh crap... why did I do that?" It may be accompanied by regret.
This guilt isn't awakened by an outside source - it's your conscience telling you that what you did was wrong.

The next "best" is what I think of as reactionary guilt. It's when you don't realize/ackowledge that what you did was wrong until outside forces interfere. For example, you think it'll be funny to put gum into your sister's hair. You laugh until she starts crying and then you feel like rubbish. This also can come attached to regret especially in the former instance.
A different friend of mine is especially good at making me feel this sort of guilty without the regret completely by accident. Anyway, the key here is that you feel bad because you feel like you've done something wrong (whether you actually have or not is up to circumstances) and you wish to atone because another person's behaviour has brought this to your attention. This is like your parents telling you that breaking curfew is bad. Note that the emphasis here is that the guilt is brought on by the realization that you were in the wrong - not the other person's feelings.

Now we have the third guilt. Much like the second kind this is triggered by another person's behaviour. However in this case you are not trying to atone because you realize what you did was wrong, but because you made this person mad/sad/other-negative-emotion. Here there is emphasis on the fact that you are responsible for their feelings and it's that responsibility that you feel bad about. Most importantly the atonement is motivated by the desire to make the "victim" happy again.

Finally we have what I think of as faux guilt. This is most closely related to the third type but rather than making it up to the person because you feel bad that you made them upset, you're trying to make it up to them because you don't want them to be mad at you. The emphasis here is that you are responsible for their feelings but the reason you feel bad is that those feelings are directed at you. Here the atonement is motivated by the desire to make the victim happy so that they're no longer mad at you... if you get what I mean. It's more egocentric, it's about how this person's feelings effect you.

This can be tied in rather nicely with Kohlberg's stages of moral development.

The first guilt can be tied in with Post-conventual morality, especially, I believe, Stage 6. It is where "moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles". Basically "Congratulations! You have a conscience!".

The second and the third guilts fit mainly under both Conventional, though not very well, I think. Conventional looks at it from the point of view of wanting to be liked and thus acting in a sociably acceptable way which fits (which fits rather nicely with Guilt type 2, if not completely), while I like to think that type three is about more caring for the other person's feelings.

The fourth is Pre-conventual at it's worse (the "stop 'punishing' me" part) and Conventional at it's best (when it's focusing on the "why don't you like me" part). This is all about rewards and punishment. This is because they view these guilty feelings as a punishment, so they want it to go away. Stage 1 best represents this "guilt" in my opinion.

Unfortunately we also have cases where people feel guilt of any of the first 3 kinds (because I have no sympathy for those with the 4th kind... and yes I have been there so I'm not a hypocrite in this instance) because they have been manipulated into feeling it (types 2 and 3) or for no reason at all (type 1). However my inspiration for that aspect has run dry for the time being... perhaps another week.

It's Late

No, I'm on time but this is a reference to a very common occurance in my house and I'm sure others.

A small observation... as well as a bit of a rant. I'm still researching for my first proper and real post.

Now, sometimes I suffer from migraine headaches – these will knock me out for hours, often causing me to sleep through my alarms. But one thing happens without fail - I will awake to the sound of my mother going "GET UP! IT'S LATE!" Now, "late" varies between 10:30 and 11:30 but my question is that if she's been up since a reasonable time why does she always wait til it's "late" to bother waking me?

I mean, logic would dictate that when the reasonable time for awakening occurs it would be a good idea to wake someone up. I mean when I get up early, I don't wait til 11am to go and wake people up - depending on sleeping in plans I wake them at 8 or 9 and then remind them every half hour.

So basically - why not try to wake a person when you actually want them to wake up rather than much later? Or is there some strange joy attained from yelling at someone?

Anyway, since I don't think all parents are some sort of sadist or that they lose track of time that often it's just something odd I've observed.

Hopefully the research for a proper non-rant will be completed by next week.