Category: Personality

2 Documentary film tells story of race...-3b7dfcbb54e73e70fecec5726453d2f901a6fd3f

Documentary Film Tells Story of Race, Drugs and Baseball

00Addiction, Featured news, Personality, Psychopharmacology, Race and Ethnicity, Resilience, Therapy April, 16

Source: baseball971 on Flickr

Narratives surrounding professional sport often make stories about performance-enhancing drugs as common a spectacle as the sports themselves. As the story often goes, pressure to succeed and maintain peak physical form drives many professional athletes to substance abuse.

We hear this tale again in Jeffrey Radice’s biographical film, “No No: A Dockumentary,” titled as a play on the name of the story’s subject, Dock Ellis, a black Major League Baseball (MLB) pitcher famous for using drugs while on the mound. In the film, Radice examines Ellis’ struggle with drug abuse, digging deep into his life story and the environment in which he played.

Beginning his major league career in the late 1960s with the Pittsburgh Pirates, Ellis was no stranger to the racial stigmatization faced by many black Americans during this time. Through interviews with former teammates, family members, and childhood friends, Radice shows the pride Ellis had for his culture’s acceptance into MLB. In his time as a professional athlete, he became known for his strong verbosity – he was expressive, opinionated, and willing to disobey MLB rules.

He also established himself as an elite pitcher in the league. His success did not come easily or without a price. Of this experience, Ellis says:

“When you get to the major leagues, it’s easier coming up the ladder, but it’s hell to stay there.”

Ellis’ initial drug of choice was a stimulant called “dexamyl,” popularly known as “greenies” in the MLB. This type of drug is classified as an amphetamine; side effects include alertness, a decreased sense of fatigue, mood elevation, and increased self-confidence. According to Ellis, “greenies” made him feel sharper and allowed him to throw with pinpoint accuracy.

On the eve of June 12th, 1970, Ellis took LSD, a hallucinogen, which lead to his most memorable performance: throwing a perfect game.

In the first half of the documentary, Ellis’ life is described as erratic but exciting, colourful, and Hollywood-like. Radice depicts Ellis’ drug-abuse in a surprisingly lighthearted manner. Ellis chuckles as he reminisces about his high-flying lifestyle when he was at the top of his game. He is portrayed as a baseball superstar, his drug abuse merely a stepping-stone to his success.

In the second half of his film however, Radice shifts his perspective to view the film’s subject through the lens of mental health. While portraying Ellis as good at what he did, Radice asks whether his success in the MLB justified his drug and alcohol abuse.

At one point, Ellis is shown coming off drugs and tearfully admitting his dependence on them. After his retirement and an unfortunate drug-fueled spousal assault, he entered rehab and spent the rest of his life mentoring and counseling other drug-dependent individuals. He stayed sober up until his death in 2008.

The juxtaposition in the documentary – between an outlandish and erratic drug-using icon and a recovered, empathic individual – is moving and effective. It represents the highs and the lows drug users face when coming to terms with their addiction, and the fight to stay sober and live a more fulfilling life.

Toward the end of the film, Ellis reads a letter sent to him by Jackie Robinson, the first African American to play in the MLB:

“There will be times when you will ask yourself if it’s worth it all. I can only say, ‘Dock, it is’ and even though you will want to yield, in the long run your own feeling about yourself will be most important. Try not to be left alone.”

Although Robinson is referring to Ellis’ determination to gain equality in the MLB, his words also relate to the issue of drug-use and addiction in professional sports. The way “No No: A Dockumentary” approaches Ellis’ biography is unique: it idolizes a great baseball player, but also highlights his dark side and shows what Ellis ultimately lost because of drug dependence.

– Alessandro Perri, Contributing Writer, The Trauma and Mental Health Report

– Chief Editor: Robert T. Muller, The Trauma and Mental Health Report

Copyright Robert T. Muller

This article was originally published on Psychology Today

Overpraising May Reduce Self-Esteem in Children

Overpraising May Reduce Self-Esteem in Children

10Confidence, Family Dynamics, Featured news, Parenting, Personality, Self-Esteem December, 15

Source: Vinicius Zeronian Mattoso on Flickr

Spend five minutes at a park, and soon you’ll hear enthusiastic parents reinforcing their kids with, “you did so amazing” and other statements as a means of encouragement.  To the nurturing parent or guardian, praising a child for performance seems like a no-brainer.

But recent research suggests that overpraising may not be such a confidence booster for some children, particularly those with low self-esteem.

Developmental psychology researcher Eddie Brummelman at Ohio State University says that using inflated praise can actually backfire.  In his research, children were asked to draw a famous painting, Wild Rose by Vincent van Gough.  One group of children received inflated praise such as “you made an incredibly beautiful drawing,” while a second group received non-inflated praise like “you made a beautiful drawing,” and a third group received no praise.

In a later task, children were asked to copy a picture of their own choice.  For example, they could choose to copy a simple picture, where the child would likely make few errors, or a difficult picture with more detail.

The results showed that children with low esteem were more likely to choose easier drawing tasks after receiving inflated statements of admiration.  In an interview with Research and Innovation Communications at Ohio State University, Brummelman said, “if you tell a child with low self-esteem that they did incredibly well, they may think they always need to do incredibly well.  They may worry about meeting those high standards and decide not to take on any new challenges.”

Children with low self-esteem may interpret high praise as expectation, making them afraid of failure and disappointment, and consequently, afraid to take on novel tasks.

Elizabeth Gunderson and colleagues at the University of Chicago found that parents who praised with a focus on the child’s personal characteristics (e.g. “you’re so smart”) implied to the child that their ability was fixed and unchangeable, resulting in a lack of motivation to tackle challenging tasks.  But when parents highlighted their child’s efforts (e.g. “you worked hard”), children often used positive approaches for problem solving, and believed that their abilities could be improved with effort.

Researchers often refer to this constructive encouragement as process praise.

Psychology professor, Lisa Marie Tully, from the University of California states that process praise might be especially beneficial for children who are generally more motivated and persistent.  Those children are more likely to ask for help when faced with experiences of failure after attempting challenging tasks.

Interestingly, Gunderson also found that the amount of praise that the child received from the parent had no apparent effect on motivation or self-esteem.

Consistent with these findings, Michigan State University Extension (MSUE) suggests ways to give constructive encouragement to children, to promote self-confidence and competence.

MSUE advises that supporting the child’s effort, whether or not they are successful in accomplishing a task, is important.  So instead of using personal and exaggerated praise in an attempt to boost esteem, let the child know that you recognize their determination.

Letting the child know exactly what they are doing well and noticing the detail of their work is critical.  Trading ambiguous praise for detail-oriented questions lets the child know that their work is interest-worthy.  When children are explicitly told what they are doing right (e.g. “good job at cleaning up the blocks”), it’s more effective in changing future behaviours and promoting improved effort.

– Khadija Bint-Misbah, Contributing Writer, The Trauma and Mental Health Report

– Chief Editor: Robert T. Muller, The Trauma and Mental Health Report

Copyright Robert T. Muller

This article was originally published on Psychology Today

159993-164389

New EEG Technology Makes for Better Brain Reading

00Cognition, Featured news, Health, Intelligence, Mind Reading, Neuroscience, Optimism, Personality, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Sleep, Sport and Competition, Therapy, Trauma September, 14

Clinical psychologists have a long tradition of attempting to understand what is “on the mind” of their clients by use of psychological tests. The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales, for example, have been used for decades to assess intelligence levels. And other empirically valid psychometric measures are commonly used to understand patient mood or personality functioning.

To this point, direct examination of brain activity as a window into the client’s mind has remained elusive. But advances in the field of brain examination using electroencephalographs (EEGs) may be changing all that.

The first EEG was developed in the 1920’s by the German psychiatrist Hans Berger. He developed it to test the biological electricity produced in the brain, and first used it during brain surgery performed in 1924 on a 17-year-old boy.

If the EEG has been around for almost a century, why is it so important now? Recent technological advancements may soon have a profound impact on how mental health practitioners diagnose mental illness.

Currently, we know that the EEG records activity in the brain through electrodes attached to the scalp. When neurons (electrical pulses the brain uses to send messages) fire, they produce a small current. The EEG reads and records this current between 250 and 2000 times a second. The graphs it makes of these readings are what we know as ‘brain waves.’

The EEG is primarily used to diagnose epilepsy. As of 2005, 70% of EEG referrals were for epilepsy. During an epileptic seizure there is a large spike in brain activity that the EEG has little difficulty detecting. Even then, it is used in conjunction with a clinical examination by a physician, not as the sole means of diagnosis.

The second most common use is to diagnose sleep disorders such as narcolepsy and sleep apnea. The EEG is effective at reading the brain waves produced during sleep, which show special patterns in those with sleep disorders.

Biomedical engineering professor Hans Hallez of Flanders’ University writes, “during the last two decades, increasing computational power has given researchers the tools to go a step further and try to find the underlying sources which generate [brain waves]. This activity is called EEG source localization.”

Source localization is the technique that tells us which part of the brain is communicating. With advances in neuroscience and imaging techniques, we know what activities are represented by different parts of the brain. For example, activity in the primary visual cortex in the occipital lobe is related to vision and activity in special areas of the temporal lobe is associated with speech.

If you know what part of the brain is communicating and what it is responsible for, then you can start to build a picture of what brain waves from different parts of the brain mean. In theory, this is what some experts consider akin to mindreading

But the game-changer is this: recent developments in the field have led to a portable EEG that is relatively cheap, effective, and requires no human scoring.

Philip Low, who is the founder, CEO, and chief scientific officer of NeuroVigil Inc., developed a complex algorithm in 2007 that allows one electrode to do the work of many. His company has developed what they have named the iBrain. It uses one wireless electrode sensor the size of a quarter to record brain activity with an app that works on a smartphone.

Low says, “our vision is that one day people will have access to their brain as routinely and as easily as they currently have to their blood pressure.” He hopes to code brain wave profiles of those suffering from mental illnesses into a database at NeuroVigil that receives information from iBrain users’ cell phones. The iBrain 3 is expected to cost around $100 and be available to the public in the next few years.

Low isn’t the only one pushing the boundaries of EEG technology using single electrode devices. Hashem Ashrafiuon, a mechanical engineering professor at Villanova University’s College of Engineering has developed similar technology. His work is being used in sports helmets that can instantly diagnose concussions by detecting large changes in brain waves that occur immediately after impact.

Ashrafiuon sees many applications for his work. “It can basically be used to diagnose any health problem that affects brain activity. We hope to monitor brain health in patients with mild traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, Alzheimer’s disease, mild cognitive impairment, and sleep and circadian disorders.”

It is the belief of technology developers Low and Ashrafiuon that we will one day have brainwave profiles of all mental illnesses stored. Diagnosing a mental illness would be assisted by comparing brain wave profiles of a patient to a database of stored sample profiles, allowing for rapid diagnosis.

Does it sound too simple? Perhaps. Diagnosis of mental illness involves a substantial behavioral component. What the brain looks like may be a far cry from the choices a given individual makes, and how those choices affect later functioning. 

Still, there is reason for guarded optimism about the developments in EEG technology. The portability and improved accuracy will help with the diagnosis of epilepsy and sleep disorders, allowing patients to be comfortable at home and still be monitored. The more physically and economically accessible it is the better.

In a few years you may be the proud owner of Low’s iBrain 3. But in all likelihood, it won’t replace mental health practitioners any more than a good toothbrush replaces a dentist.

– Contributing Writer: Bradley Kushnier, The Trauma and Mental Health Report

– Chief Editor: Robert T. Muller, The Trauma and Mental Health Report

Copyright Robert T. Muller

This article was originally published on Psychology Today