Issue 2 - Spring 2014 by PsychO

PsychO THE PSYCHOLOGY OBSERVER

Issue 2 - Spring 2014

Sociopaths and Psychopaths

Also, Supertaskers / Correspondence Bias / ADHD Epidemic Study Habits / Schizophrenia / Gender Identity Debunked and more

From the Editors We’ve all said it (or thought it) before, in a fit of anger: “I could just kill someone right now.” But of course we don’t really mean it, because we know that it’s morally wrong, and we understand the legal consequences. We’ve also all called someone else “crazy,” but we don’t mean that either. Our society relegates true mentally insane people to a different, separate category; we romanticize them, we fear them, they are outcasts, they are the minority. As we explore in this issue of PsychO, people view sociopaths and psychopaths as innately different from themselves–almost, arguably, as inhuman. To us, these “crazy” people are something to marvel at from a distance, like a caged tiger in a zoo. Surely, they are not we, and we are not they. But is this point of view legitimate? What makes sociopaths and psychopaths who they are? Do clinical and societal definitions differ, and if so, what are the consequences of this disparity? How likely is it, really, that any of us may interact with one of these outsiders? Is the boundary separating “normal” from “insane” so firm, so clear? Perhaps there is a gray area, a spectrum. Perhaps you have the potential to become a sociopath or a psychopath. Perhaps you already are. The school year is at it’s end, and we all feel the pressure now more than ever. We may feel like we’re reaching our limit, but we know there are those who don’t have limits or follow rules. As much as we try to separate ourselves from them, we must still ask whether they are still members of the human race who have the same human rights as we do, or if we must create new precautions to restrict them. In a way, much of the articles in this issue relate to the idea of outsiders, and the notion of “us” versus “them.” The article on the stigmatization of lung cancer reveals prejudice against patients–resulting in a lack of research funds– due to the association between the disease and smoking. This prejudice even affects lung cancer victims who never opened a pack of cigarettes, and its ramifications are truly deadly. The article on gender identity highlights the fact that being transgender was, until very recently, considered a mental disorder. We’re slowly gaining awareness that older forms of classification (and isolation) are both inaccurate and hurtful. Is it only a matter of time until we treat sociopaths and psychopaths with more openness and acceptance? We don’t think this question is answerable just yet, but perhaps we can present some evidence and compare different perspectives. We’re so thankful to our intelligent, hardworking writers and editors for making PsychO a possibility. Not once did we think that we would receive the support and effort that we did, especially in our first year of production. Naturally, we still have room to grow next year and in the future, and we couldn’t be more excited to see what lies ahead. Allison Chang and Kasia Kalinowska Editors in Chief 2 the psychology observer | spring 2014

contributors

Editors in Chief

Allison Chang Kasia Kalinowska

Layout Editor

Allison Chang

Copy Editors Charley Hillel Irena Hsu Gaelan James Livia Mann Nicole Velez

Staff Writers

Anna Daddazio Stephanie Fernandez Hannah Fink Charley Hillel Irena Hsu Gaelan James Livia Mann Rebecca Okin Danielle Resheff Toby Teitel Jane Thier Nicole Velez

Faculty Advisor Dr. Tom Kelly

The Psychology Observer is Horace Mann’s premier psychology publication. The views and opinions expressed in this student publication do not necessarily represent those of Horace Mann itself.

PsychO issue 2 - spring 2014

mental health

features

16 The Psychopath

stigmatization:

Lung Cancer Why we need to stop assigning fault to victims By Jane Thier 6

Schizophrenia

Losing perception of reality By Anna Daddazio

in our world 8

Correspondence Bias The phenomenon behind errors in snap judgments By Rebecca Okin

10 What Cravings

Really Mean

Eyes bigger than your stomach? Why it’s all in your head By Irena Hsu 12 Study Habits Memory and retention are the way to a good grade By Hannah Fink 14 supertaskers:

The HyperProductive Few

Extreme multitasking can be learned By Nicole Velez

Test

When madness is defined by the sum of its parts By Stephanie Fernandez 18 Psychopaths vs.

Sociopaths

Which is a lesser of two evils? By Toby Teitel 20 real-life lecter:

Robert John Maudsley

The cannibal behind Hannibal By Gaelan James

22 Sociopathy in the

Media

Why we love those who can’t (and won’t) love us back By Livia Mann hot topics 24 controversy:

ADHD Epidemic

Is ADHD’s real phenomenon its over-diagnosis? By Danielle Resheff 26 Gender Identity

Debunked

How society fails to address gender By Charley Hillel spring 2014 | the psychology observer

STIGMATIZATION OF LUNG CANCER by Jane Thier

ung cancer is the deadliest of all cancers worldwide, killing roughly twice as many women as breast cancer, and nearly three times as many men as prostate cancer. It is responsible for over 25% of cancer deaths. Yet people do not widely celebrate “Lung Cancer Awareness Month” (which, by the way, is in November) or don blue ribbons to advertise their support of the research effort. This is because people associate lung cancer as a result of smoking–the patient’s own fault. While 80% of lung cancer victims are smokers or former smok-

ers, thousands upon thousands of people have this disease, and bear the stigma that comes with it. Lung cancer patients, dramatically more than patients of other kinds of cancer, report feeling stigmatized due to their diagnosis. Lung cancer was one of the first diseases to be identified as caused by cigarette smoking. Since the 1960s, America has seen a dramatic decline in smoking, and with this change in public attitude towards smoking has come the stigma towards lung cancer. A “blame-the-victim” culture has emerged among lung cancer victims, a great deal of whom may never have even smoked in sever-

4 mental health | diseases & disorders

al years, or even ever. In a study conducted with a group of individuals with lung cancer, the vast majority was likely to agree with statements like “I am ashamed I got my type of cancer”, “My family feels ashamed of my type of cancer”, and “I am embarrassed to tell people my type of cancer.” Even individuals who have never smoked feel the effects of the stigma. Unfortunately, this stigma has translated into a massive inequality in research funding. For every woman who dies of breast cancer, approximately $26,000 are donated for research. Whereas, for every woman who dies of lung cancer, just over $1,000 are

opposite page: Society has, and largely still does, linked lung cancer with smoking, thus making a diagnosis the victim’s own fault. at left and below: Advertisements by the Lung Cancer Alliance protest the stigmatization of the disease. The “_______ deserve to die...if they have lung cancer” posters expose the cruelty of saying that the disease is justified for anyone.

invested. The difference is staggering. This stigma takes a dramatic toll on both research funds, as well as the mental health of the patients. Feeling stigmatized by friends and family or even complete strangers poses a serious concern, as these situations are likely to result in depression. Lung cancer patients have the highest rates of depression among cancer patients. Clinical depression causes great distress, impairs functioning, and could make cancer patients less able to follow their treatment plan. Slowly, non-smoking lung cancer patients have started to push

back against this stigma and raise awareness about the importance of funding and supporting the fight against lung cancer. “In every other disease, the first question people ask is, ‘How can I help?’ But with lung cancer, there’s no empathy. It’s always, ‘Did you smoke?’ After a while, it’s just easier not to say anything,” Angela Ferris, president and chair of the LUNGevity Foundation said in an article in the Chicago Tribune. The phenomenon closely mirrors that of the AIDS crisis in the 1980s and 90s. People were paranoid about the spread of the disease because they did not know

what the condition entailed, and because AIDS was known as the “gay disease” due to its presence among homosexuals. For years, AIDs patients had no hope for treatment, and even today, there is no definitive cure for the disease. “If we don’t start paying attention and changing attitudes, we will have a losing battle ahead of us,” University of Chicago oncologist Dr. Ravi Salgia said in the same Chicago Tribune article. With increased research, more lives will be saved from this degenerative disease. But first, the stigma must be alleviated.

spring 2014 | the psychology observer

SPOTLIGHT ON SCHIZOPHRENIA by Anna Daddazio

chizophrenia is a serious brain disorder that affects how a person thinks, feels, or acts. A person with schizophrenia may see people or hear voices that others cannot see or hear. One may have difficulty distinguishing between what is imaginary and what is real. This can make it difficult for one to act or communicate properly in social situations. Contrary to popular belief, with the proper care, most schizophrenics are able to live fulfilling lives. There are a few different types of schizophrenia: paranoid (feeling suspicious or oppressed), disorganized (incoherent in thought and speech), catatonic (withdrawn or

mute), residual (apathetic towards life), and schizoaffective (mood disorders). The exact cause of schizophrenia is uncertain, but genetics is the most common theory. Although 1% of the general population suffers from schizophrenia, 10% of people who have first-degree schizophrenics in their family also have the disease. Schizophrenics have a chemical imbalance of serotonin and dopamine, two neurotransmitters that trigger feelings of happiness when released. Some scientists believe that a certain gene that makes these brain chemicals malfunction may be passed on in families. The malfunction of these chemicals makes it difficult for peo-

6 mental health | diseases & disorders

ple to handle different sights, smells, tastes and sounds, causing hallucinations or delusions. At the same time, schizophrenia is manageable and people can live meaningful lives with the proper care. Because the exact causes of the disease are still unknown, schizophrenics may take medications to try to reduce its symptoms. “Typical” antipsychotic pills are the most common form of medication. There are also “atypical” antipsychotics, which tend to block receptors in the brain’s dopamine pathways. Although atypical antipsychotics are less likely to cause extrapyramidal motor control disabilities (unsteady Parkinson’s disease-type movements), only a

opposite page: A drawing by English artist Louis Wain (1860-1939). Wain is best known for his depictions of his cats and is considered a classic example of a schizophrenic artist. at left: Schizophrenic mathematician John Forbes Nash, Jr. (b. 1928). Nash co-won the 1994 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for his contributions to game theory.

at right: A Beautiful Mind (2001), directed by Ron Howard, is based on Nash’s life and struggle with schizophrenia. Russell Crowe portrayed Nash in the film and received and Academy Award nomination for Best Leading Actor. The film won four Academy Awards, including Best Director and Best Picture, but has also been criticized for overdramatizing aspects of Nash’s delusions.

few have been demonstrated to be more effective than the typical antipsychotics. One example of someone with schizophrenia who lived a very successful life is John Forbes Nash, Jr. Born in 1928, Nash was a “genius” mathematician who did work in game theory, differential geometry, and partial differential equations. He served as a Senior Research Mathematician at Princeton University and shared the 1994 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences with game theorists Reinhard Selten and John Harsanyi. Today, his theories are used in market economics, computing, evolutionary biology, artificial intelligence, accounting, politics

and military theory. In May 1959, Nash was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. He started acting erratically and claimed to meet people who were coercing him into dangerous situations. He also believed that all men who wore red ties were part of a communist conspiracy against him. His paranoia was so excessive that he started mailing letters to embassies in Washington D.C. claiming that these men were establishing their own government. In 1961, Nash was committed to the New Jersey State Hospital at Trenton and for many years received antipsychotic medications and even insulin shock therapy. Nash believed

that because of his unusual way of thinking, he was more motivated and thus strived to feel important and recognized. “I wouldn’t have had good scientific ideas if I had thought more normally…If I felt completely pressureless I don’t think I would have gone in this pattern,” he said. Nash and many others prove that it is very possible to live a fulfilling life with schizophrenia. Though this disease might make everyday tasks more challenging, it can also sometimes cause the brain to function in an unusual way that allows one to think differently from the average person, making one extremely intelligent and letting one impact society in a unique and meaningful way.

spring 2014 | the psychology observer

CORRESPONDENCE BIAS by Rebecca Okin

hen someone makes a quick decision, he or she is usually unaware of the effects the decision may have on others’ perception. If we relate that action to external circumstances, we make what is called a situational attribution. However, humans have a completely natural tendency to make snap judgments about another person’s character based on a single interaction; this is called a dispositional attribution. In psychology, there is a phenomenon that says that the latter case occurs more often than the former. This is known as the fundamental attribution error, or

“correspondence bias.” It is possible to view the way we evaluate others as hypocritical; when we do the very same action as a stranger, we account him or her to our situation. However, because we are generally ignorant of a stranger’s circumstances, we associate his or her actions with solely that person’s characteristic nature. For example, you may find it completely justifiable to push through a crowd of people if you see the school bus across the street about to take off. Yet, if a stranger were to be the one running through the mob and you were among those people, you

8 in our world | psychology in everyday life

would probably not consider that the stranger could be in the same situation you had previously experienced, and simply assess his or her entire character based on an action you see as “rude” out of context. A University of California Berkeley study proves the influence of this phenomenon in a context that possibly hits closer to home: college admissions. Actual admissions officers from several American colleges were used in order to determine whether or not correspondence bias plays a role in school acceptances. The research team presented the test subjects with various students of

opposite page: If someone suddenly shoves you out of his or her way, you may assume that he or she is a naturally rude person. However, as correspondence bias shows, you may be making an error in judgment, as that person may only be pushing you because he or she is running late for the bus. at left: Studies show that college admissions officers are more likely to admit a student with an unrealistically high GPA than to consider potential extenuating factors, such as grade inflation.

at right: In another study, business students chose to hire airline managers who had the best record with timely flight departures, without considering factors such as the airports or departments in which the candidates worked.

different academic profiles and asked them to determine to whom they would grant admissions. Interestingly enough, the counselors tended to choose the candidates with the higher grade point average, regardless of whether or not the school’s average GPA was unbelievably high (signaling either inflation or low standards). Similarly, the study tested job candidates in an identical way and yielded the same results. For example, business students were presented with the résumés of various applicants and asked to select whom they would hire for the position of an airline manager.

Although the evaluators were also given information regarding the types of airports the potential employees worked at—mainly to contrast the difficulty of departing from each—the general trend of the first part of the study remained constant: the business students were still more inclined to choose a manager who had the “best percentage of on time departing flights.” Why, if the background information in both cases is present, did the officers and business students decide to select the candidates who may have, on the surface, had better credentials, but may have only thrived because of

an environment’s low standards? In order to answer this question, assess your own response to the stranger’s pushing through the crowd. Although you did not have as much information as the evaluators of the study had about the context of the situation, judging the pusher was an instinctive reaction. Perhaps it is much easier to make a decision by only judging the “simple” facts, the ones that do not go deep into comparing any element besides accomplishments out of context.

spring 2014 | the psychology observer

WHAT CRAVINGS REALLY MEAN by Irena Hsu

e’ve all had cravings. Different from actual hunger, a craving is simply an intense desire to consume a specific food. In the past, these sudden urges to have a specific food were believed to have indicated dietary deficiencies. In fact, tests have proven that a desire to chew ice is linked to iron deficiency, and people who are severely lacking in sodium will have strong cravings for salty food. Yet, while it is true that different diets can cause certain cravings, they are not the main culprits. At the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Cen-

ter on Aging, Professor Susan Roberts has been studying the different foods that people crave the most. In one test, she put 32 overweight women on a special diet and found that foods like potato chips and French fries or brownies and other sweets were among the most popular cravings. The most obvious thing that tied these two categories of foods together was the fact that they were all high in calories. As it turns out, it’s not just lacking something from the food pyramid that causes yearnings for certain foods; it’s having a monotonous diet. In a test where a handful of healthy young men

10 in our world | psychology in everyday life

and women were only allowed to drink nutrition shakes every meal for five days, the participants reported experiencing more cravings than they did while consuming a varied diet. Further studies have also shown that cravings are more psychological than biological. Researchers put participants in MRIs and gave them a nutrition shake to drink, which was followed by the participants’ being asked to think about one of their favorite foods. The scans from the MRI showed that the parts of the brain associated with food cravings—the hippocampus, caudate, and insula—were the same

opposite page: Despite popular belief, the main cause of cravings is not purely nutritional; psychology plays a part, too. at left: Dr. Susan Roberts has linked cravings to a monotonous diet, in healthy and overweight people alike.

at right: Other researchers have shown that satisfying a craving will release the same neurotransmitters in the brain that would be released if you were to take drugs.

as the parts of the brain associated with drug addiction. Together, these three parts of the brain reinforce a “reward-seeking” behavior that helps form habits, remembering which foods bring about “happy” feelings. Surprisingly similarly to drug addiction, eating a favorite food will trigger hormone receptors, which will over time become less sensitive, leading to a need to consume more of that specific food. Of course cravings won’t directly harm the body like drugs will, but they still pose a health risk to some. For example, food cravings can lead to binge eating, leading to obesity and eating

disorders. On top of that, after a binge-eating episode, one can begin to have feelings of guilt and shame. The good news is, since cravings are psychological, there are ways for people to beat them. To get around suddenly seeing images of a certain food, one can instead picture another activity such as running or drawing. To get around getting cravings from smelling a certain aroma, one can just find another non food-related odor to smell. Nonetheless, these methods of avoiding cravings won’t keep them from ever happening. The good news is that cravings aren’t

always all bad, and if monitored carefully, won’t pose any serious health risks. So, next time you feel an urge to head over to the cafeteria on Fried Chicken Monday in the middle of a study session, it’s fine to go get some and reward yourself for your hard work.

spring 2014 | the psychology observer

STUDY HABITS AND RETENTION by Hannah Fink

lmost all of the assessments we take on a daily basis require retention. This is why we are constantly inundated by our teachers, tutors, and peers with different ways to study, which habits are best, and how to keep all of that information locked inside our brains until we might need it. The question is, what exactly do these tricks rely on, and what is happening inside of our brains when we utilize these study devices? Studying is understanding the material and memorizing the formulas, terms, and methods to execute the answer to a given problem. When something happens and your brain processes it, the image or mo-

ment is "encoded" into your brain and becomes one of millions of memories. Memory, "the process of maintaining information over time,” is the basis of studying, and works in a very direct manner. Let's say you see the word "book" on the board in class. The first step is encoding, where the brain takes in the word and gives it meaning. The second step is memory storage, often called "retention". Memory storage is the step used most often in studying. There are two types of memory storage: short-term memory and long-term memory. Short-term memory usually lasts for 15-20 seconds, but can be kept in your brain longer through repetition. An exam-

12 in our world | psychology in everyday life

ple of this is when you go to the store and want to make sure you’ve memorized your grocery list. You repeat the list back to yourself: eggs, milk, bread, cheese. Short-term memory can hold only so much–around seven items, give or take two. If you have to memorize a lot of material, try grouping bits of it together by letter or type of material, thus reducing the number of “items” you have to retain. This is called chunking, a method used by famous mathematicians to memorizes long chains of numbers like pi. They take pieces of the chain and 'chunk' it together, thus assigning it a new meaning. For example, if you’re trying to memorize a strand

of letters and numbers such as “ANN12R4134M4S12Q,” think of them as ANN1, 12R4, 134M, 4S12Q. If that method isn't quite your cup of tea, try priming, a word-idea association trick. Your brain is basically just a network, so priming works to introduce a stimulus to remind you of another related stimulus. For example, a person who sees the word ‘yellow‘ will be quicker to recognize ‘banana’ because the two words are closely related. If both of those still don't work, try using a mnemonic. If you're a millennial or older then you’ll probably recognize this mnemonic representation of the solar system (including Pluto): My Very Educated Mother Just Served Us Nine Pizzas. This device has served many a student well in the fourth grade. Long-term memory is different from short-term in that a memory is rehearsed and then remembered for longer than twenty seconds. They are also processed in a specific part of the brain called the hippocampus, which is located within the brain’s temporal lobes. The hippocampus acts as a scribe of sorts, helping with the initial recording of information and memories, until it is sent to the cerebral cortex where it is stored. Now that there are all of these studious memories, the third step takes place during the actual assessment that you just spent all night studying for! Referred to as retrieval, this is the step in which you actually find the information you just stored somewhere in your brain. There are different names for retrieval based on what type of assessment you're taking. "Recall" is when there is little to no cue, such as a fill in the blank portion of an assessment. "Recollection" is the molding of a memory, such as when you are prompted with an essay question. You remem-

ber malleable parts of information for the question, and then add more memories and information based on these pieces. Finally, "recognition" is considered the easiest, when one must recognize which given answer is correct, such as choosing an answer from a word bank.

“Short-term memory can only hold so much – around seven items, give or take two.”

wondering (worrying) about is the question on most Horace Mann students’ minds; how does studying in high school differ from in college? In regards to the neurological aspect, not much. But in regards to attitude? Yes, definitely. In high school a student spends the majority of his or her day learning. Because of this, many teachers rely on class time to teach the material effectively so that students can simply do homework to practice or enhance their skills while at home. In college, students’ unstructured class schedule acts as a double-edged sword. On one hand, students are provided with the autonomy to structure their own learning experience. On the other hand, students are expected to do much of the learning and studying outside of the classroom. High school and college also differ in their testing strategies, with high school students being tested much more frequently than college students. This makes college essays and tests cumulative with much more material than high school tests. Because of these differences, many argue that study habits drastically change in college from high school. While you may be sitting in your dorm room using the same old habit of flashcards, the amount of time you spend studying and learning the actual classroom material will most likely augment from your days in high school. I always hear from my older friends and teachers that the thing college students have an abundance of is time outside of the classroom. Therefore, whether you are in high school or college, these study methods are tried and true–so use them to get that A+!

Other miscellaneous tips and tricks to help with studying are found in Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences. This theory hints at intelligence categories that might help place a person on the most effective study path. If someone is a verbal/linguistic learner and relies on writing, reading, thinking in words, and recounting stories, a good study method for this type of learner may be through rote memorization, which involves writing all notes by hands to aid memorization. This is why many people benefit from taking notes by hand in the classroom. Remember, not everyone is the same! Others fall differently into the categories Gardner provides. Some rely heavily on listening and others on visual materials. Before you begin to sit down and study, throw out what anyone else tells you and think. How do you learn and memorize the most? Bright lights, comfortable space, hard backed chair, flashcards, outline on the computer? Whatever it may be, use those factors as a base opposite page: You may find that the best for the best possible study habitat. What I think many of us are study habitat is outdoors. spring 2014 | the psychology observer

SUPERTASKERS

THE HYPER-PRODUCTIVE FEW

ultitasking has become a way of living for many people; however, for most of us, trying to do more than one task at a time can be both mentally and physically harmfulâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;studies done to analyze the mental effectiveness of multitasking have caused the creation of laws that ban phone usage while driving. Two psychologists from the University of Utah, Jason Watson and David Strayer, decided to test human mental capability with multitasking. They selected 200 students and created an experiment that tested two different tasks at the same time. The students performed simulated driving tests, while also taking a standardized

by Nicole Velez

memory test. The memory test involved both math and word memorization. Both psychologists were astonished by the results. The data showed that 97.5% of the students showed a significant decrease in their driving performance and memory skills. The most shocking part, however, was the fact that 2.5% of the students were actually able to do both tasks effectively. In fact, certain students improved in their ability to do both tasks wellâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the supertaskers. Psychologists define supertaskers as people who can juggle two demanding mental tasks without pausing or making mistakes. Most people have a limited amount of mental resources, located in the frontal cortex, that

14 in our world | psychology in everyday life

can handle a task. Therefore, the brain can only devote a certain amount of such resources per task. An increased number of tasks means that each task will receive a smaller amount of brainpower, which results in a decreased performance. On the contrary, the brains of supertaskers are able to contribute the same amount of brainpower for each task regardless of how many tasks there are in total. Our brains are not physically capable of performing two tasks simultaneously. During the act of multitasking, our brains switch between tasks. These quick switches, as well as distractors, put heavy burdens on attention, memory, and focus. Supertaskers are able to overcome mental obstacles

opposite page: While 97.5% people decrease in productivity when performing several talks simultaneously, the remaining 2.5% seem to possess a special multitasking ability. at left: David Strayer, left, and Jason Watson showed that “supertaskers” who can perform multiple tasks at once really do exist.

at right: Neuroscientist Adam Gazzaley demonstrated that “supertasking” is an ability that people can teach themselves by learning to ignore unnecessary stimuli.

in order to perform two tasks without a heavy mental strain; however, it is possible that, by mastering certain techniques, anyone can become a supertasker. Adam Gazzaley, a neuroscientist at the University of California, suggests that humans select which stimuli we let in through the regulation of attention. In order to juggle tasks without making mistakes, a supertasker needs to rely on his or her ability to weed out certain distracting stimuli. Supertaskers are able to ignore daydreams and side chatter in order to focus on the main mental task. By improving the ability to ignore distractors, people are able to keep better track of multiple streams of information—non-super-

taskers can thus increase their cognitive task capacity. Gazzaley created an experiment to test this theory and found that unnecessary visual stimuli and background noise negatively affected the performance of a task. He then created a game that forced the participants to get rid of unnecessary stimuli—they had to identify certain road signs and ignore others. Repeated play of the game led to improved attention and the ability to ignore distractors. Ordinary people were able to exercise this ability in order to successfully perform at the level of a supertasker. Habitual video gamers exemplify how humans are capable of reshaping our brains to be able to perform

multiple mental tasks simultaneously. Gamers are forced to allow only relevant information from the video games into their brains. Through the demand of enhanced attention control, gamers extract more important data and disregard the distractors. Adam Gazzaley is continuing to explore different ways of improving attention and memory that may be more powerful than gaming. He is currently testing a meditation-inspired activity that will help people train themselves to minimize or ignore internal distractions. Supertaskers are just people who have learned to master certain skills that improve their attention— any person can obtain the same results through mental training.

spring 2014 | the psychology observer

THE PSYCHOPATH TEST by Stephanie Fernandez

n the 1970s, Canadian psychologist Robert D. Hare developed a way to experimentally test for psychopathy. This test, called the Bob Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL), was based partially on his work with male offenders and forensic inmates in Vancouver, and partially on a clinical profile by American psychiatrist Hervey Cleckley first published in 1941. The exam is based on two factors; factor 1 concerns personality traits and factor 2 concerns behavior. Psychopathic personality, or “aggressive narcissism,” includes traits such as a grandiose sense of self-worth, a lack of remorse or guilt, and a failure to accept responsibility for one’s own

actions. Elements of psychopathic behavior, or a “socially deviant lifestyle,” include impulsivity, a parasitic lifestyle, and poor control over emotions. A revised version of the Hare PCL was drafted in 1985 and released in 1991 as the PCL-R, with an updated second edition in 2003. It includes a manual, a rating booklet, scoring forms and interview guides. The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) is an analytical device used to rate a person's psychopathic or antisocial tendencies. Psychologists regard it as the best method for determining the presence and extent of psychopathy in a person. Initially intended to assess people accused or convicted of crimes, the

16 features | sociopaths and psychopaths

PCL-R consists of a 20-item symptom rating scale that allows experienced examiners to compare a subject's degree of psychopathy with that of an archetypal psychopath. The PCL-R provides a total score that indicates how closely the test subject matches the "perfect" score that a prototypical psychopath would get. Each of the twenty items is given a score of 0, 1, or 2 based on how well it applies to the subject. The maximum is 40, while someone with absolutely no psychopathic traits or tendencies would receive a score of zero. A score of 30 or above qualifies a person for a diagnosis of psychopathy. The average person would score around 5, and many non-psychopathic criminal of-

opposite page: Canadian psychologist Bob Hare, creator of the original PCL. The test has received both praise and criticism for its goal of using a checklist as a measure of a person’s sanity. at left: Jon Ronson, author of The Psychopath Test.

at right: The cover of Ronson’s book. The subtitle is “A Journey through the Madness Industry.” In it, Ronson explores the positives and the negatives of the test and explores the nature vs. nurture debate surrounding psychopathy.

fenders get around 22. While the test is considered the most accurate and practical way to evaluate for psychopathy, opponents of the PCL-R argue that test items are subjective and that a certain subject may receive a higher score on a certain day, and that false results can have negative effects on the subject’s professional life. Author Jon Ronson explored this gray area of the PCL-R in The Psychopath Test. In it, Ronson gets to know a prison inmate who claims to have feigned psychopathy in order to plead insanity on a manslaughter charge, and who now cannot prove his sanity. The book raises questions as to whether or not there is a hard line separating psychopathy from normality.

Are you a psychopath? Rank yourself with the PCL-R, listed below. Give yourself 0, 1, or 2 points for each criterion, 0 meaning least applicable and 2 meaning most applicable. The sum of your total points is your score. The average person would get a score of around a 5; a psychopath would get a score of over 30. A non-psychopathic criminal might get around a 22. Keep in mind that these criteria are subjective and that you may get different results on a week-to-week or even day-to-day basis. 1. Superficial charm 2. Grandiosity 3. Need for stimulation 4. Pathological lying 5. Cunning and manipulating 6. Lack of remorse 7. Callousness 8. Poor behavioral controls 9. Impulsiveness 10. Irresponsibility 11. Denial

12. Parasitic lifestyle 13. Sexual promiscuity 14. Early behavior problems 15. Lack of realistic long-term goals 16. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions 17. Many short-term marital relationships 18. Juvenile delinquency 19. Revocation of conditional release 20. Criminal versatility spring 2014 | the psychology observer

SOCIOPATHS VS. PSYCHOPATHS by Toby Teitel

sychopathy and sociopathy are often considered synonymous, but they actually describe different mental conditions. What exactly is the difference between “psychopath” and “sociopath”? By definition, psychopathy is a lack of interest in, or care for, the sanctity of human life, while sociopathy is a lack of interest in, or care for, the rules of a society. First, let’s examine the similarities between the two terms. Both psychopaths and sociopaths lack a moral compass and are generally incapable of sympathizing with the feelings of other. They both lack the set of ethics that are com-

monly accepted in our society. The main differences between the two are the nature vs nurture aspect and the criminal aspect. Psychopaths are born, and perhaps inherit, temperamental differences such as impulsivity, an inability to internalize social norms, and a propensity to engage in risky behavior. Sociopaths are able to blend in with society much more easily because they have relatively normal temperaments. Their disorder is believed to stem from negative sociological factors such as parental neglect, delinquent peers, poverty, and extremely low or extremely high intelligence.

18 features | sociopaths and psychopaths

Psychopaths are predisposed toward violence and impulsivity while sociopaths rarely are. Psychopaths behave erratically while sociopaths are able to control themselves in society. Sociopaths are more likely to commit calculated crimes such as fraud while psychopaths are more likely to commit rash, violent crimes. Sociopaths make up 4% of the population and psychopaths make up only 1%. Two classic examples of psychopaths are Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy. Dahmer murdered 20 men over the course of 13 years. He stored severed heads in his refrigerator and practiced necrophilia

opposite page: Supposed sociopath Bernie Madoff was arrested for running a Ponzi scheme and sentenced to house arrest. at left: Psychopath Jeffrey Dahmer killed 20 men over the course of 13 years and stored severed heads in his refrigerator.

at right: Psychopath Ted Bundy, the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Lady Killer,â&#x20AC;? sexually assaulted and murdered an alleged 100 young women.

and cannibalism. Ted Bundy murdered and raped a suspected 100 young women between 1974 and 1978. Both of these men represent the extreme spectrum of psychopathy, but psychopathy can manifest itself in less severe ways such as torturing of animals or an inflated sense of self. Sociopaths are less easy to spot as they are far less likely to commit heinous crimes. Bernie Madoff is often alleged to be a sociopath given his self-serving remorseless behavior.

-Constant lying -Flat affect in emotional circumstances -Charming disposition at first -Manipulation -Violence -Egotism -Extended, uninterrupted eye contact -Lack of real friends -Immaturity

Here are some tips of how to identify a psychopath: -Superficial charm -Delusions of grandeur Some qualities of sociopaths in- -Need for constant stimulation clude: -Pathological lying -Lack of shame -Manipulation

-Lack of remorse -Lack of emotional response and empathy -Parasitic lifestyle -Violence -Criminal behavior Although these red flags may seem similar, it is important to remember that psychopaths are a threat to society while sociopaths are a threat to the relationships around them. Still, both conditions are psychological, and the people who have them cannot be evaluated with the same moral measures as might apply to non-affected people.

spring 2014 | the psychology observer

ROBERT JOHN MAUDSLEY THE CANNIBAL BEHIND HANNIBAL

obert John Maudsley, born in Liverpool on June 26th, 1953, is a serial killer considered to be one of Britain’s most dangerous prisoners. He has been convicted for four murders, three of which occurred inside prison. Maudsley allegedly consumed part of the brain of one of his victims, earning him the moniker of “Hannibal the Cannibal” due to his similarity to the killer from the film The Silence of the Lambs. Maudsley’s homicidal psychosis originated from his deeply unhappy childhood. He was born one of 12 children and spent the first eight years of his life in an orphanage until his parents retrieved him.

by Gaelan James

However, it was not a happy reunion. His parents regularly beat him for years until social services removed him from their care. As a teenager, he became involved with various drugs and worked as a male prostitute to support his addiction. After several suicide attempts he was forced to seek psychiatric help. In his therapy sessions, he claimed that he had been raped as a child that and his abuse left him with very deep emotional scars. He reportedly once said, “If I had killed my parents in 1970, none of these people need have died.” Maudsley’s first murder occurred in 1972, when was 20 years old and possibly still working as a prosti-

20 features | sociopaths and psychopaths

tute. A man picked him up for sex, and before they engaged in any sexual activity, the man showed Maudsley pictures of young children he had sexually abused and graphically described the abuse he inflicted. This triggered Maudsley’s memories of his own abuse and enraged him. Maudsley garroted the man, strangling him with a rope-like material, and was arrested soon after. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and sent to Broadmoor, a hospital for the criminally insane. Four years later, Maudsley teamed up with John Cheesman, another inmate, and took hostage an inmate convicted of child molestation. They locked themselves in a

opposite page: Hannibal Lecter, played by Anthony Hopkins, confined in his glass cage in The Silence of the Lambs (1991). The film won Academy Awards in all the top five categories, including Best Actor for Hopkins. above: One of the few existing photos of Maudsley (b. 1953), taken in his prison cell at Broadmoor Hospital. at left: Mads Mikkelsen as the titular character of Hannibal, currently airing on NBC.

cell with their victim and tortured him to death over a period of nine hours. When guards finally broke into the cell, they found the hostage with his skull smashed open and a spoon sticking out of his brain. Maudsley openly confessed to having eaten some of the hostage’s brain matter. After this incident, Maudsley was relocated to Wakefield prison. He was very upset by the transfer and made it quite clear to the guards. Soon after the transfer, on one day in 1978, he killed two more of his fellow inmates. The first victim was Salney Darwood, a man convicted of killing his own wife. Maudsley lured Darwood into his cell where he then garroted and stabbed him to death with homemade weapons. He then went looking for another victim and decided on Bill Roberts. Maudsley cornered Roberts, stabbed him, hacked at his skull with a makeshift dagger, and finally

smashed his head against the wall. Maudsley then casually walked into the prison officer’s room, laid the dagger on the table, and let the officer know that his next roll call would be two people short. In 1983, Maudsley was determined too dangerous for a normal cell. He is currently confined in a “glass cage,” a two-room unit that apparently bears an uncanny resemblance to the one in which Dr. Hannibal Lecter is housed in The Silence of the Lambs. It was build specifically for Maudsley eight years before the film premiered. In subsequent years, many have drawn connections between Hannibal Lecter, a fictional, cannibalistic serial killer who first appeared in Thomas Harris’ series of suspense/ horror novels, and Robert Maudsley. However, the two are only somewhat similar. All of Lecter’s murders involved cannibalism, whereas only one of Maudsley’s did.

Lecter is portrayed as an extremely well educated and intelligent individual, and Maudsley seems to be of average, if not below-average, intelligence. Both of these killers were traumatized as children, but in different circumstances. Whereas Maudsley was physically and sexually abused, Lecter and his sister Mischa were captured by a band of Nazi collaborators who murdered and ate Mischa while forcing Lecter to watch; Lecter later found out that his captors fed him some of Mischa’s remains. The main similarity between these two killers concerns the cell in which they are kept after being caught; it is possible that Hannibal’s cell in The Silence of the Lambs is specifically based off of Maudsley’s cell in Wakefield Prison. Robert Maudsley’s murders may not be as brutally vicious as Hannibal Lecter’s, but the fact that Maudsley is a real human being who is still alive today is simply chilling.

spring 2014 | the psychology observer

SOCIOPATHY IN THE MEDIA by Livia Mann

ne in every twenty-five Americans is a sociopath. No joke. With four percent of the population possessing anti-social personality disorder or “sociopathy,” it is no wonder that the media is obsessed with this minority. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV, an individual must possess at least three of the following characteristics to qualify as a sociopath*:

ity 4. Irritability, aggression 5. Recklessness and disregard for the safety of self or others 6. Irresponsibility 7. Lack of remorse after mistreating another person

Sound like anyone you know? Statistically speaking, it should. And even if these characteristics do not define someone who you know personally, they are sure to remind you of a certain charac1. Failure to conform to social ter from a TV show or movie, or norms someone you’ve heard about on 2. A tendency to manipulate or de- the news. The media has historiceive cally been infatuated with the idea 3. Failure to plan ahead, impulsiv- of sociopaths. 22 features | sociopaths and psychopaths

There is no better example of our fascination with sociopaths than America’s first serial killer, Herman Webster Mudgett, or as you may know him, H.H. Holmes. Holmes murdered somewhere between nine and two hundred people from 1888 to 1894. The exact number of victims is still unknown because he would dismember the bodies, cremate them, or sell the organs and skeletons to medical schools. Countless books have been written about him, several movies have been made, and there was even an episode of the CW’s Supernatural regarding his ghost. For some reason, America can’t get enough of H.H. Holmes, so the

media gives us what we want. The early fictional sociopaths such as the titular character in Oscar Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Gray or Bram Stoker’s Dracula (both books published in the late 19th century) are associated with supernatural characteristics. Both books send the clear message that you have to be a monster to be evil. Dorian Gray only gained his reckless nature, irresponsibility, and lack of remorse after he gained the ability to remain young forever in place of his portrait. Dracula, one can only speculate, was not evil before he was turned into a vampire. Before sociopathy was a widely understood condition, sociopaths were just viewed as evil. Now that sociopathy is a more widely known condition, the media’s portrayal of sociopaths has become more realistic. Gone are the days of evil things hiding in the dark; the sociopath has moved to center stage. Frank Underwood on Netflix’ House of Cards is manipulative, deceitful, aggressive, and shows no remorse after hurting others. He pushes a person in front of a moving subway without hesitation and does not even flinch as her electrocuted flesh splatters all over the tracks. The power-hungry Underwood is sociopathic politician who we all wish was just a fantasy, but who we secretly know is real in some form or another. Dolores Umbridge (of Harry Potter fame) could be classified as a sociopath due to her manipulative nature, irritability and aggressiveness, and lack of remorse. While the Harry Potter world is far from realistic, she is reflective of the very real sociopathic and abusive authority figure whom we have all known at one point or another.

The “evil” sociopath is an ageold concept, but a new trend in media portrayals is the sociopath who fights for good. The BBC’s Sherlock currently depicts a Sherlock Holmes who possesses the first six characteristics on the aforementioned list. Sherlock admits to his condition, exclaiming, “I’m not a psychopath…I’m a high-functioning sociopath.” Sherlock lacks typical human emotions, but he actively saves lives and does good; this cannot be said of Dracula or Dolores Umbridge.

male. In addition, the media favors the male sociopath because they tend to attract female viewers with their sociopathic charm. Most of these fictional sociopaths are charming, tall, dark, and extremely intelligent. These characteristics, while over exaggerated by the media, are based on truth. Real-life sociopaths use charm, good looks, and intelligence to manipulate and deceive. The media gives sociopaths dark complexions as a physical manifestation of their dark personalities, and they appear tall in the media to show their domineering nature. In real life, sociopaths cannot “These characters be identified by any particular create the illusion physical characteristics. Fictional sociopaths tend to have chemical that there is such a dependency such as Frank Underthing as a ‘good’ wood’s smoking or House’s vicodin addiction. This could possibly sociopath.” be to humanize the sociopath and make him look slightly weaker, Another example of the “good” or it could be a portrayal of his sociopath is Dr. Gregory House self-destructive nature. The media from the show House on Fox. portrayal of the sociopath is pretty House is essentially a new twist far from the real thing. Sociopaths on Sherlock. He exhibits the same are not as easily identifiable as the hilarious arrogance while saving infamous characters that we see on lives by solving mysteries. We love screen. to love sociopaths because we are naturally drawn to these damaged yet admirable figures, but these characters create the illusion that *Don’t freak out just because you there is such a thing as a “good” see a few of these characteristics in sociopath. It is unlikely that you yourself. You are not a sociopath will ever stumble upon an admi- just because you’re impulsive, irrerable sociopath in your life; they sponsible, or irritable. Most peoreally are just fiction. ple have a few of these characterWhether good or evil, there are istics. Then again, there is a one in a few characteristics which all of twenty-five chance that you are a our favorite fictional sociopaths sociopath. You might want to call share. The majority of sociopaths your therapist. in fiction are male, not because most sociopaths are male, but be- opposite page: Benedict Cumberbatch cause the most power hungry and portrays “high-functioning sociopath” and detective extraordinaire Sherlock Holmes famous of sociopaths tend to be in the BBC’s Sherlock. spring 2014 | the psychology observer

CONTROVERSY: ADHD EPIDEMIC by Danielle Resheff

DD, or ADHD, is a prevalent mental disorder in our society—the most commonly studied and diagnosed psychiatric disorder in children and adolescents. This being said, its cause is unknown, and a great deal of controversy surrounds the legitimacy of the disorder. Just to clarify, both ADD and ADHD are different abbreviations for the same disorder, but ADD is simply a more antiquated terminology. Because so much controversy surrounds the disorder, it is important to clearly define ADHD and its directly related symptoms. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, is a psychiatric

disorder of neurodevelopment in which there are significant problems of attention, hyperactivity, or impulsivity that are not appropriate for a person’s age. While forgetting homework, acting without thought, fidgeting, and daydreaming occasionally all constitute normal behavior for children, inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity are clear signs of ADHD, all of which can impair a child’s ability to learn and get along well with others. If a parent spots only minor accounts of these symptoms or signs, then chances are that the child is exhibiting appropriate, non-ADHD behavior. However, if such signs are present in different arenas of

24 hot topics | navigating the unknown

a child’s life, i.e. school, home, the playground, with friends, then the signs potentially point to ADHD or a related disorder. The symptoms listed above generally begin around ages six to twelve and must be present more than 6 months for an accurate diagnosis to ensue. The boisterous or unpredictable nature of young children increases the probability of under- or over-diagnosis, so it is easy to identify a kid with ADHD as normal and leave him or her unmedicated to be ridiculed for misbehavior. Similarly, it is easy to mistake a normal kid as a kid with ADHD, especially when private-practice doctors reap the ben-

efits prescribing expensive medication associated with the disorder. ADHD affects approximately 7 percent of children when diagnosed via the DSM-IV criteria and 2 percent when diagnosed via the ICD-10 criteria. It is three times more likely to be diagnosed in boys than in girls. Rates generally depend mostly on how the disorder is defined. In the United States, child psychiatrists consider ADHD to be a biological disorder with genetic roots that warrants biochemically-oriented treatments such as Ritalin and Adderall. Conversely, in France the number of kids diagnosed and medicated for ADHD is just 0.5 percent. This is because French child psychiatrists view ADHD as a medical condition that has psychosocial and situational causes. Instead of treating children’s focusing and behavioral malfunctions with Adderall or Ritalin, French doctors generally choose to seek out the underlying problems causing said child distress. In addition, French child psychiatrists don’t use the DSM, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the system of classification of childhood emotional problems that American psychiatrists refer to when diagnosing. Of those diagnosed during childhood, 30 to 50 percent continue to have symptoms of the disorder into and throughout adulthood. Around 2 to 5 percent of these adults continue to display prominent symptoms of the condition, but most children with ADHD will show fewer noticeable symptoms as they grow older. Numbers of those who actually have the condition, as opposed to those who are diagnosed, are hard to attain, as it can be difficult to distinguish ADHD

from other disorders or even simply high normal activity. The controversy surrounding ADHD diagnosis includes a flurry of popular misconceptions as well as some truths. The largest misconception, that ADHD is not a legitimate disorder, is false on the grounds that the disorder has a strong biological component to it, notes Stephanie Sarkis, Ph. D, a nationally certified, licensed mental health counselor and author of four books on adult ADHD. Experts point out that the genes controlling the levels of certain chemicals in the brain, known as neurotransmitters, appear different from those without ADHD. One study shows that children with ADHD had hundreds of gene variations not found in most children not diagnosed with the disorder.

“The largest misconception, that ADHD is not a legitimate disorder, is false.”

plagues the study of ADHD is that of whether the disorder is genetic or learned. A genetic link is not always observed, and common behaviors such as smoking or drinking during pregnancy have been linked to ADHD in children. The condition tends to run in families—if both parents have ADHD, the children are more likely to develop it, and at least one-third of all fathers or mothers who had ADHD in their youth have children with ADHD—but it is unclear whether this connection relates to nature, nurture, or both. The French argue that a certain stringent lifestyle can prevent or control the misbehavior and unfocused nature usually associated with ADHD. This explains why such a drastically smaller number of French children get diagnosed and medicated for ADHD than American children: the French have a different philosophy surrounding the raising of children and the external causes of certain mental inefficiencies. Upon recognizing current knowledge of how ADHD works, what its causes may be, and how easy it is to mistake a normal child for one with ADHD and vice versa, it is overall hard to conclude whether or not the disease is over-diagnosed. Since such a prevalent number of children are diagnosed (and some experts argue that many more cases go unnoticed), it is important to ask whether the disorder is just a setback that some people have to deal with more than others, or if it is something that demands medical attention and special accommodations.

In addition, Ari Tuckman, PsyD, a psychologist and author of More Attention, Less Deficit: Successful Strategies for Adults with ADHD, dispels the misconception that ADHD is “not a big deal” by pointing out the struggles individuals with ADHD typically face in all areas of their lives. “There has even been research showing that people with ADHD having lower credit scores and higher blood cholesterol levels, revealing their difficulties with managing a broad range of opposite page: Detail from Lullaby, the Seasons (2002) by British artist Damien lifestyle matters,” Tuckman said. Hirst. Another controversy that spring 2014 | the psychology observer

GENDER IDENTITY DEBUNKED by Charley Hillel

hat do transgender and cisgender mean? Transgender means that your gender is different from the one you assigned at birth, cisgender means that you are the gender you were assigned at birth. Cissexism is discrimination against transgender people, transmisogyny specifically refers to discrimination against transgender women. Most people are aware that there are transgender women, and transgender men; there are also people who identify as nonbinary, or outside of the traditional man/woman gender binary. There are many ways that nonbinary people refer to themselves and their gender, which rang-

es from a neither male nor female third gender, no gender at all, both male and female, male, female, and nonbinary, female and nonbinary, male and nonbinary, etc. Nonbinary people may also use genderless pronouns, referring to themselves with a singular they, or nontraditional pronouns such as xe. Wikipedia has a good list of nontraditional pronouns on its “Gender neutral pronoun” page, under the subheading of “invented pronouns” (bear in mind that all pronouns and language is invented, so this is not a judgment on neutral pronouns). It is important to respect the identity, gender, and pronouns of transgender people. If someone wants to be

26 hot topics | navigating the unknown

referred to as a woman, do so. It is not up to you to determine a person’s gender and how they should be referred to. Being transgender different from being intersex, wherein one has ambiguous genitalia, and does not refer to a person’s gender, although there are intersex people who identify as transgender. Of course, the traditional sex binary is also a flawed view as sex consists of a number of characteristics including primary and secondary sexual characteristics including fat and muscle distribution, hormone patterns, chromosomes, internal and external genitalia, all of which vary greatly from person to person. Human beings display little natural

sexual dimorphism. The vision of wide hipped woman with long head hair, little no body hair, breasts, and little muscle definition is a modern social construction, as is the flat chested, narrow hipped, skinny, childlike female preferred today a social construction. In the same way the ideal vision of a muscular, tall, short haired man is a social construction of what a man, or at least an attractive man should look like. Olympic athletes are a great example of this. The Olympic committee in recent years has made incredibly cissexist and misogynistic comments regarding woman athletes who are too muscular and mannish, whose testosterone levels are perhaps too high to for the narrow minded Olympic committee to view as women. The lack of sexual dimorphism present in people who are uninterested in maintaining a particular body type in interest of fitness is very pronounced in professional athletes. And before you say to yourself, reader, regarding the testosterone issue “Well of course male hormones are, well, male, and female hormones are female,” stop. There is no such thing as a male or female hormone. All humans have varying levels of testosterone, estrogen, and progesterone, although medically males and females are expected to have different amounts of these hormones in a certain range, there is great deal of variation from person to person, as there is with most physical characteristics. For examples, I have Polycystic Ovary Syndrome, and I’m on androgen blocking medication and a synthetic estrogen to manage my hormonal problems in order to regulate my ovarian function and prevent related complications from arising. Our everyday language and society is

incredibly cisnormative and exclusionary to transgender people. Every part of the body, from the vulva and penis to the chest is gendered, as is language, appearance, dress, behavior, hobbies, foods, even colors. We insist on gendering everything, even though it is completely unnatural. The only way around this issue is to become aware of what you say and do. In the case of the body, do not use colloquialisms such as “lady parts” or use language that suggests that every man or woman has certain body parts, and everyone with certain body parts is a man or woman. Vulva, penis, testosterone, progesterone, estrogen, and breasts are the only way to refer to body parts in a non gendered manner. “Female/male-bodied” is also an inaccurate term.

“Our everyday language and society is incredibly cisnormative and exclusionary to transgender people.” Designated female/male at birth (shortened to dfab and dmab) is the correct way to refer to “male” and “female” bodies. Some people refer to themselves as camab or cafab, coercively assigned male/female at birth. This may not seem important, but the intense gendering of our entire society is incredibly microaggressive. Microaggressions are every day insults or statements that intentionally or unintentionally negatively target minorities. For example, gendering a body part is microaggressive because by doing that, you are misgendering (intentionally or

unintentionally referring to me by the wrong gender) me and gendering my body. It may be difficult to grasp, but a “male” body is the body of anyone who identifies as a man, a “female” body is the body of anyone who identifies as a woman, and the bodies of nonbinary people are neither male nor female. So how does this all relate to psychology? Well, being transgender was diagnosed as “Gender Identity Disorder” until the DSM-5 whereupon it was reclassified as “Gender Dysphoria.” That means that until 2013, being transgender was classified as a mental illness, This is untrue. Although transgender people suffer from the same mental and physical illnesses as cisgender people, being transgender is not a mental illness. Gender dysphoria is a discontent with the gender you were assigned at birth, and can refer to discontent with body parts such as the genitalia, chest, and body hair, and can overlap with body dysmorphic disorder which is a fixation on body image and perceived physical flaws, although with transgender people, this is very important as one’s physical appearance is strongly related to one’s gender presentation and perception, and one’s ability to pass as a cisgender person, which is very important as being openly transgender can be very unsafe. Pathologizing dysphoria is so much less stigmatizing than pathologizing being transgender. No one is mentally ill because they are trans. You can suffer from depression, anxiety, and dysphoria related to being trans, but you are not mentally ill solely for being trans, and you never have been, and anyone who doubts that or the validity of your gender identity is wrong.

spring 2014 | the psychology observer

See Issue 2 online:

issuu.com/psychologyobserver Want to write for us?

Email allison_chang@horacemann.org or katarzyna_kalinowska@horacemann.org

to join our mailing list.