Category: Uncategorized


Sleep

“The average human will spend 1/3 or their life sleeping, which equates to about 20 – 25 years over 75 Year life span”
-ABC National Sleep Project

image

Something that has only been brought to my attention recently – I suffer from a rare sleep disorder (parasomnia) called catathrenia. In my case this manifests as (sometimes loud) moaning in my sleep that sound almost sexual in nature. I actually wish it WAS down to naughty dreams that I could remember because from the way it has been described to me by my poor sleep-deprived partner my moaning is quite…enthusiastic! However I am completely unaware of it when it happens so all the disturbance falls on my partner, and probably the embarrassment too since I have no shame! All this plus loud snoring, and yet we’re the ones complaining about the noise from our neighbours, go figure!

Although this seems to occur comorbidly with obstructive sleep apnoea (periods of not breathing during sleep due to obstruction of the airways) there is by no means a fixed relationship. The groans, which in one study were shown to last between 1/2 and 21 seconds long) can occur at either REM or NREM stages of sleep, although it is thought they are concentrated on the REM stages. There are claims that catathrenia can be treated by CPAP, which Wikipedia usefully explains as:
” Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the use of continuous positive pressure to maintain a continuous level of positive airway pressure.”
Thanks wiki, very useful! Luckily the NHLBI provide a better explanation:
“CPAP, or continuous positive airway pressure, is a treatment that uses mild air pressure to keep the airways open.”
However, having looked into it, I can’t see myself sleeping at night with a mask on my face attached to a motor device!

In a lecture today we learned that there is is actually no proof that sleep deprivation can cause death, or that it causes psychosis in everyone (although it certainly can in some). I know I function very poorly myself when I start losing sleep, with my attention, concentration, mood, and motivation rapidly deteriorating. I wonder if I could push past that and function on no sleep at all? It would be GREAT to have the extra hours in my day to get everyone everything done! Although I suspect my end of year exam grades might reflect poor learning functions! Maybe I could learn to sleep like ducks, who apparently can sleep with one hemisphere of their brain at a time!

“The record for the longest period without sleep is 18 days, 21 hours, 40 minutes during a rocking chair marathon. The record holder reported hallucinations, paranoia, blurred vision, slurred speech and memory and concentration lapses.”
-ABC National Sleep Project

So why do we sleep? Well one common theory is that we sleep to “recharge” or to restore an internal imbalance. However despite the commonness of this theory, there is no evidence to support it at all – no proof of an imbalance, and no “recouperation” process observed during sleep. Despite this you can find plenty of magazines writing about how sleep is critical to restore your internal balance! (another myth is that all animals sleep – in fact reptiles, amphibians, fish, and insects have cycles of inactivity but do not sleep as we know it).

An alternative hypothesis is that we evolved sleep as an adaptation to the day / night, light / dark cycle around us. This is the Circadian Rhythms hypothesis, and there is a body of evidence supporting this theory, including neurological studies.

There are five stages of sleep, which we cycle through during the night. We start awake, then progress from stage 1 through 4 spending very roughly half an hour at each stage, before moving back up to stage 1 which is now REM sleep. After half an hour here the cycle begins again, but eventually we start going through fewer of the stages, until we finally wake.
image

Looking at overall brain activity, stage 1 consists of alpha waves which are irregular, low intensity and high frequency waves. Stage 2 consists of theta waves which are slower than the alpha waves. Also at this stage there are the occasional K Complex or sleep spindles – bursts of high intensity activity lasting for a second or two. Stages 3 and 4 are collectively called Slow Wave Sleep (SWS), and it is this that we commonly call “deep sleep”. During these phases the brain – which consumes more energy than any other organ in the body, reduces its energy consumption by 75%. Once we have moved back up to REM sleep in stage 1 the energy consumption is almost back to normal waking levels. It is during REM sleep that most of our dreaming occurs.

If you didn’t need sleep at all, what would you do with the extra hours?

This post is dedicated to my very forgiving partner, in apology for all the sleepless nights my pseudo-eroticism moaning has caused.

Care Plans

The Care Programme Approach was officially adopted into the national mental health care framework in 1991, and later adapted and revised. The cornerstone of the CPA is the Care Plan, a documented plan of the needs and strengths of a service user, and how to manage these in the future. The Care Plan also identifies all the people involved in that service user’s care, and any risk factors. For people who are in contact with multiple professionals (for example a therapist, a neurologist, a psychiatrist etc.) a care coordinator is named. This person assumes overall responsibility for the Care Plan and for coordinating the different professionals. Care Plans are also dynamic, and should be reviewed regularly with the service user (usually something like every six months).

As defined in the Department of Health literature Making the Care Programme Approach Work For You, the CPA is supposed to be a collaborative effort with the service user. In fact a large driving force behind the adoption of this model was the complaints of the service users that they felt they were being treated like objects, that they had no say in the care they were receiving and their opinions were completely unvalued. In the Central and North West area there is a target that 30% of care plans should be written in the first person – that is, by the service user.

“It is also expected that all people providing services do so within a set of personal / professional values that:

-Shows respect for you as a person including recognition of your personal strengths and qualities
-Respect your dignity at all times
-Offer you information about reasonable choices you can make regarding your care and support.
-Demonstrate respect for equality of opportunities for all, regardless of ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, culture, or spiritual beliefs.
-Help you feel as in control of the whole process as possible
-Respect the views of people who are important to you”

As the importance of carers and families has been more recognised, it has also become a recognised practice to involve the support network around the service user in the care plan, and to invite them to the care plan review meetings.

As well as recognising the problems and needs of the individual, Department of Health guidelines state that the care plans should also look at the strengths of the service user and how these can be developed / leveraged to promote recovery and wellbeing. Finally, the service user should always be provided with a copy of their care plan as soon as possible after it has been completed.

It drives me potty to hear about badly produced care plans. I have heard of care co-ordinators copy/pasting care plans across different clients (!), leaving entire sections of the plan blank, writing no risk factors, or (and this is REALLY common) writing only the barest of plans. By this I mean one sentence responses in sections, showing that the person filling out the care plan has not really paid any attention to the service user. To say something like “service user fine” in a care plan review is simply not acceptable.

So, psychology students, medical students, and anyone else who might one day find yourselves completing someone’s Care Plan: Remember what it is you are filling out, and what its purpose is.

Assumptions

Recently I have been playing a console game online, which is quite unusual for me. I am from a different generation, a generation of LAN parties, groups of gaming mates who have all carted their computers to one location to enjoy the kind of multiplayer experience that consoles have been trying to recapture since. Shouting friendly insults, advice, and commands to each over the gaming noise, and occasionally throwing objects too. It wasn’t always so friendly, it could get very competitive at times, but it always worked out and everyone would be back next time for more.
Ah I miss the days of deathmatch before it was dominated by a minority of players. I also miss turning my enemies into chickens, that was always good for a laugh :-P

Then Internet gaming took off and you no longer had to be in the same room to play with each other. In one swoop the social element of gaming disappeared, now only developing over longer games like Work of Warcraft and its ilk. You turn on, play against strangers sat in your room alone, and then turn off at the end. Many online gamers interact with other players only minimally.

The introduction of chat messaging within games early on helped that a little, as did the introduction of voice chat functionality, but it wasn’t until consoles made this more standard and also introduced fixed profiles that real progress was made. There is still a long way to go before gaming becomes truly social again, and I have no idea how it is going to get there. There are some major obstacles to overcome first…

My recent experience reminded me of something. That people often are not comfortable playing with other players clearly outside their age range. For example when I plugged in my headset (with my microphone carefully on mute as usual) I realised that the two other players in my game were young. Very young. At a guess I would have said they were about twelve. They were also American, so there was a lot of “ohmygosh” and similar expressions of amazement at almost anything that happened (even at a loading screen once!). I also realised that not only had they assumed that I was about their age, but they had also made the mistake of assuming that because I had chosen a female character, I was female myself. I’m sure they would have been surprised to find out I was an almost thirty British male!

The psychology of the digital age is something that originally drew me to study psychology. The rules of social interaction are being rewritten, completely new ways of interacting and communicating are shaping our society. When I have more time I would love to dedicate more effort to learning about some of the theories in this area. Its a shame that my course doesn’t cover it!

As promised, here are the videos that help memorise parts of the brain :)

Part 1

Part 2

I have just finished reading Stitches by David Small, a graphic novel about his childhood growing up in a loveless home. I also received Psychiatric Tales for Christmas, another excellent graphic novel (ish). I am always amazed at how powerful graphic novels can be, so I thought I’d make a quick list of some psychology related graphic novels that I consider worth reading. Please let me know if you know of any more!

Couch Fiction – Phillipa Perry and Junko Graat
This graphic novel is not particularly “story” driven, but does give a great insight into the therapy process. We follow a therapist seeing her new client, and while the troubles he has and her dealing with him are about as simple as can be, being able to see into the minds of both people gives a unique insight into what it is like both to be a client and a therapist. The footnotes at the bottom of most pages then explain the process further, including explaining certain terms and also the intentions of the therapist.
An interesting graphic novel especially worth reading for anyone who wants to know more about what psychodynamic therapy is about.

Psychatric Tales – Darryl Cunningham
This “graphic novel” is clearly intended to give people insight into what working on a psychiatric ward is like. It is split into focused sections like “elderly”, “cutting”, and “bipolar”, and the author clearly has plentiful experience and hold the values of respect, caring, and understanding close. Recommended for anyone interested in learning about psychiatric wards or mental health in general.

Depresso – Brick
Ok, I admit I’ve not had a chance to read this one yet. But it looks good!

Stitches – David Small
Growing up in a loveless house is difficult in any circumstances, but it wasn’t until later that this young man finally found out how much damage he suffered at the hands of his parents. An emotional story of a trapped child, and triumph over adversity.

5 Traits Personality Test

This test was recommended as part of the Personality Disorder training I am currently doing, and I thought it would be interesting to share the results of this (suprisingly detailed) 5-traits test with you. You can find the test and do it yourself here.

This report compares PsychologyStudent-55 from the country UK to other adult men. (The name used in this report is either a nickname chosen by the person taking the test, or, if a valid nickname was not chosen, a random nickname generated by the program.)

This report estimates the individual’s level on each of the five broad personality domains of the Five-Factor Model. The description of each one of the five broad domains is followed by a more detailed description of personality according to the six subdomains that comprise each domain.

A note on terminology. Personality traits describe, relative to other people, the frequency or intensity of a person’s feelings, thoughts, or behaviors. Possession of a trait is therefore a matter of degree. We might describe two individuals as extraverts, but still see one as more extraverted than the other. This report uses expressions such as “extravert” or “high in extraversion” to describe someone who is likely to be seen by others as relatively extraverted. The computer program that generates this report classifies you as low, average, or high in a trait according to whether your score is approximately in the lowest 30%, middle 40%, or highest 30% of scores obtained by people of your sex and roughly your age. Your numerical scores are reported and graphed as percentile estimates. For example, a score of “60″ means that your level on that trait is estimated to be higher than 60% of persons of your sex and age.

Please keep in mind that “low,” “average,” and “high” scores on a personality test are neither absolutely good nor bad. A particular level on any trait will probably be neutral or irrelevant for a great many activites, be helpful for accomplishing some things, and detrimental for accomplishing other things. As with any personality inventory, scores and descriptions can only approximate an individual’s actual personality. High and low score descriptions are usually accurate, but average scores close to the low or high boundaries might misclassify you as only average. On each set of six subdomain scales it is somewhat uncommon but certainly possible to score high in some of the subdomains and low in the others. In such cases more attention should be paid to the subdomain scores than to the broad domain score. Questions about the accuracy of your results are best resolved by showing your report to people who know you well.

John A. Johnson wrote descriptions of the five domains and thirty subdomains. These descriptions are based on an extensive reading of the scientific literature on personality measurement. Although Dr. Johnson would like to be acknowledged as the author of these materials if they are reproduced, he has placed them in the public domain.
Extraversion
Extraversion is marked by pronounced engagement with the external world. Extraverts enjoy being with people, are full of energy, and often experience positive emotions. They tend to be enthusiastic, action-oriented, individuals who are likely to say “Yes!” or “Let’s go!” to opportunities for excitement. In groups they like to talk, assert themselves, and draw attention to themselves.

Introverts lack the exuberance, energy, and activity levels of extraverts. They tend to be quiet, low-key, deliberate, and disengaged from the social world. Their lack of social involvement should not be interpreted as shyness or depression; the introvert simply needs less stimulation than an extravert and prefers to be alone. The independence and reserve of the introvert is sometimes mistaken as unfriendliness or arrogance. In reality, an introvert who scores high on the agreeableness dimension will not seek others out but will be quite pleasant when approached.

Domain/Facet……….. Score 0——–10——–20——–30——–40——–50——–60——–70——–80——–90——–99
EXTRAVERSION……………83 ***********************************************************************************
..Friendliness………….66 ******************************************************************
..Gregariousness………..57 *********************************************************
..Assertiveness…………96 ************************************************************************************************
..Activity Level………..69 *********************************************************************
..Excitement-Seeking…….60 ************************************************************
..Cheerfulness………….88 ****************************************************************************************

Your score on Extraversion is high, indicating you are sociable, outgoing, energetic, and lively. You prefer to be around people much of the time.

Extraversion Facets

Friendliness. Friendly people genuinely like other people and openly demonstrate positive feelings toward others. They make friends quickly and it is easy for them to form close, intimate relationships. Low scorers on Friendliness are not necessarily cold and hostile, but they do not reach out to others and are perceived as distant and reserved. Your level of friendliness is average.
Gregariousness. Gregarious people find the company of others pleasantly stimulating and rewarding. They enjoy the excitement of crowds. Low scorers tend to feel overwhelmed by, and therefore actively avoid, large crowds. They do not necessarily dislike being with people sometimes, but their need for privacy and time to themselves is much greater than for individuals who score high on this scale. Your level of gregariousness is average.
Assertiveness. High scorers Assertiveness like to speak out, take charge, and direct the activities of others. They tend to be leaders in groups. Low scorers tend not to talk much and let others control the activities of groups. Your level of assertiveness is high.
Activity Level. Active individuals lead fast-paced, busy lives. They move about quickly, energetically, and vigorously, and they are involved in many activities. People who score low on this scale follow a slower and more leisurely, relaxed pace. Your activity level is high.
Excitement-Seeking. High scorers on this scale are easily bored without high levels of stimulation. They love bright lights and hustle and bustle. They are likely to take risks and seek thrills. Low scorers are overwhelmed by noise and commotion and are adverse to thrill-seeking. Your level of excitement-seeking is average.
Cheerfulness. This scale measures positive mood and feelings, not negative emotions (which are a part of the Neuroticism domain). Persons who score high on this scale typically experience a range of positive feelings, including happiness, enthusiasm, optimism, and joy. Low scorers are not as prone to such energetic, high spirits. Your level of positive emotions is high.

Agreeableness
Agreeableness reflects individual differences in concern with cooperation and social harmony. Agreeable individuals value getting along with others. They are therefore considerate, friendly, generous, helpful, and willing to compromise their interests with others’. Agreeable people also have an optimistic view of human nature. They believe people are basically honest, decent, and trustworthy.

Disagreeable individuals place self-interest above getting along with others. They are generally unconcerned with others’ well-being, and therefore are unlikely to extend themselves for other people. Sometimes their skepticism about others’ motives causes them to be suspicious, unfriendly, and uncooperative.

Agreeableness is obviously advantageous for attaining and maintaining popularity. Agreeable people are better liked than disagreeable people. On the other hand, agreeableness is not useful in situations that require tough or absolute objective decisions. Disagreeable people can make excellent scientists, critics, or soldiers.

Domain/Facet……….. Score 0——–10——–20——–30——–40——–50——–60——–70——–80——–90——–99

AGREEABLENESS…………..90 ******************************************************************************************

..Trust………………..85 *************************************************************************************

..Morality……………..75 ***************************************************************************

..Altruism……………..93 *********************************************************************************************

..Cooperation…………..94 **********************************************************************************************

..Modesty………………1 *

..Sympathy……………..99 ***************************************************************************************************

Your high level of Agreeableness indicates a strong interest in others’ needs and well-being. You are pleasant, sympathetic, and cooperative.

Agreeableness Facets

Trust. A person with high trust assumes that most people are fair, honest, and have good intentions. Persons low in trust see others as selfish, devious, and potentially dangerous. Your level of trust is high.
Morality. High scorers on this scale see no need for pretense or manipulation when dealing with others and are therefore candid, frank, and sincere. Low scorers believe that a certain amount of deception in social relationships is necessary. People find it relatively easy to relate to the straightforward high-scorers on this scale. They generally find it more difficult to relate to the unstraightforward low-scorers on this scale. It should be made clear that low scorers are not unprincipled or immoral; they are simply more guarded and less willing to openly reveal the whole truth. Your level of morality is high.
Altruism. Altruistic people find helping other people genuinely rewarding. Consequently, they are generally willing to assist those who are in need. Altruistic people find that doing things for others is a form of self-fulfillment rather than self-sacrifice. Low scorers on this scale do not particularly like helping those in need. Requests for help feel like an imposition rather than an opportunity for self-fulfillment. Your level of altruism is high.
Cooperation. Individuals who score high on this scale dislike confrontations. They are perfectly willing to compromise or to deny their own needs in order to get along with others. Those who score low on this scale are more likely to intimidate others to get their way. Your level of compliance is high.
Modesty. High scorers on this scale do not like to claim that they are better than other people. In some cases this attitude may derive from low self-confidence or self-esteem. Nonetheless, some people with high self-esteem find immodesty unseemly. Those who are willing to describe themselves as superior tend to be seen as disagreeably arrogant by other people. Your level of modesty is low.
Sympathy. People who score high on this scale are tenderhearted and compassionate. They feel the pain of others vicariously and are easily moved to pity. Low scorers are not affected strongly by human suffering. They pride themselves on making objective judgments based on reason. They are more concerned with truth and impartial justice than with mercy. Your level of tender-mindedness is high.

Conscientiousness
Conscientiousness concerns the way in which we control, regulate, and direct our impulses. Impulses are not inherently bad; occasionally time constraints require a snap decision, and acting on our first impulse can be an effective response. Also, in times of play rather than work, acting spontaneously and impulsively can be fun. Impulsive individuals can be seen by others as colorful, fun-to-be-with, and zany.

Nonetheless, acting on impulse can lead to trouble in a number of ways. Some impulses are antisocial. Uncontrolled antisocial acts not only harm other members of society, but also can result in retribution toward the perpetrator of such impulsive acts. Another problem with impulsive acts is that they often produce immediate rewards but undesirable, long-term consequences. Examples include excessive socializing that leads to being fired from one’s job, hurling an insult that causes the breakup of an important relationship, or using pleasure-inducing drugs that eventually destroy one’s health.

Impulsive behavior, even when not seriously destructive, diminishes a person’s effectiveness in significant ways. Acting impulsively disallows contemplating alternative courses of action, some of which would have been wiser than the impulsive choice. Impulsivity also sidetracks people during projects that require organized sequences of steps or stages. Accomplishments of an impulsive person are therefore small, scattered, and inconsistent.

A hallmark of intelligence, what potentially separates human beings from earlier life forms, is the ability to think about future consequences before acting on an impulse. Intelligent activity involves contemplation of long-range goals, organizing and planning routes to these goals, and persisting toward one’s goals in the face of short-lived impulses to the contrary. The idea that intelligence involves impulse control is nicely captured by the term prudence, an alternative label for the Conscientiousness domain. Prudent means both wise and cautious. Persons who score high on the Conscientiousness scale are, in fact, perceived by others as intelligent.

The benefits of high conscientiousness are obvious. Conscientious individuals avoid trouble and achieve high levels of success through purposeful planning and persistence. They are also positively regarded by others as intelligent and reliable. On the negative side, they can be compulsive perfectionists and workaholics. Furthermore, extremely conscientious individuals might be regarded as stuffy and boring. Unconscientious people may be criticized for their unreliability, lack of ambition, and failure to stay within the lines, but they will experience many short-lived pleasures and they will never be called stuffy.

Domain/Facet……….. Score 0——–10——–20——–30——–40——–50——–60——–70——–80——–90——–99

CONSCIENTIOUSNESS……….58 **********************************************************

..Self-Efficacy…………64 ****************************************************************

..Orderliness…………..45 *********************************************

..Dutifulness…………..75 ***************************************************************************

..Achievement-Striving…..83 ***********************************************************************************

..Self-Discipline……….40 ****************************************

..Cautiousness………….38 **************************************

Your score on Conscientiousness is average. This means you are reasonably reliable, organized, and self-controlled.

Conscientiousness Facets

Self-Efficacy. Self-Efficacy describes confidence in one’s ability to accomplish things. High scorers believe they have the intelligence (common sense), drive, and self-control necessary for achieving success. Low scorers do not feel effective, and may have a sense that they are not in control of their lives. Your level of self-efficacy is average.
Orderliness. Persons with high scores on orderliness are well-organized. They like to live according to routines and schedules. They keep lists and make plans. Low scorers tend to be disorganized and scattered. Your level of orderliness is average.
Dutifulness. This scale reflects the strength of a person’s sense of duty and obligation. Those who score high on this scale have a strong sense of moral obligation. Low scorers find contracts, rules, and regulations overly confining. They are likely to be seen as unreliable or even irresponsible. Your level of dutifulness is high.
Achievement-Striving. Individuals who score high on this scale strive hard to achieve excellence. Their drive to be recognized as successful keeps them on track toward their lofty goals. They often have a strong sense of direction in life, but extremely high scores may be too single-minded and obsessed with their work. Low scorers are content to get by with a minimal amount of work, and might be seen by others as lazy. Your level of achievement striving is high.
Self-Discipline. Self-discipline-what many people call will-power-refers to the ability to persist at difficult or unpleasant tasks until they are completed. People who possess high self-discipline are able to overcome reluctance to begin tasks and stay on track despite distractions. Those with low self-discipline procrastinate and show poor follow-through, often failing to complete tasks-even tasks they want very much to complete. Your level of self-discipline is average.
Cautiousness. Cautiousness describes the disposition to think through possibilities before acting. High scorers on the Cautiousness scale take their time when making decisions. Low scorers often say or do first thing that comes to mind without deliberating alternatives and the probable consequences of those alternatives. Your level of cautiousness is average.

Neuroticism
Freud originally used the term neurosis to describe a condition marked by mental distress, emotional suffering, and an inability to cope effectively with the normal demands of life. He suggested that everyone shows some signs of neurosis, but that we differ in our degree of suffering and our specific symptoms of distress. Today neuroticism refers to the tendency to experience negative feelings. Those who score high on Neuroticism may experience primarily one specific negative feeling such as anxiety, anger, or depression, but are likely to experience several of these emotions. People high in neuroticism are emotionally reactive. They respond emotionally to events that would not affect most people, and their reactions tend to be more intense than normal. They are more likely to interpret ordinary situations as threatening, and minor frustrations as hopelessly difficult. Their negative emotional reactions tend to persist for unusually long periods of time, which means they are often in a bad mood. These problems in emotional regulation can diminish a neurotic’s ability to think clearly, make decisions, and cope effectively with stress.

At the other end of the scale, individuals who score low in neuroticism are less easily upset and are less emotionally reactive. They tend to be calm, emotionally stable, and free from persistent negative feelings. Freedom from negative feelings does not mean that low scorers experience a lot of positive feelings; frequency of positive emotions is a component of the Extraversion domain.

Domain/Facet……….. Score 0——–10——–20——–30——–40——–50——–60——–70——–80——–90——–99

NEUROTICISM…………….81 *********************************************************************************

..Anxiety………………69 *********************************************************************

..Anger………………..34 **********************************

..Depression……………69 *********************************************************************

..Self-Consciousness…….69 *********************************************************************

..Immoderation………….99 ***************************************************************************************************

..Vulnerability…………86 **************************************************************************************

Your score on Neuroticism is high, indicating that you are easily upset, even by what most people consider the normal demands of living. People consider you to be sensitive and emotional.

Neuroticism Facets

Anxiety. The “fight-or-flight” system of the brain of anxious individuals is too easily and too often engaged. Therefore, people who are high in anxiety often feel like something dangerous is about to happen. They may be afraid of specific situations or be just generally fearful. They feel tense, jittery, and nervous. Persons low in Anxiety are generally calm and fearless. Your level of anxiety is high.
Anger. Persons who score high in Anger feel enraged when things do not go their way. They are sensitive about being treated fairly and feel resentful and bitter when they feel they are being cheated. This scale measures the tendency to feel angry; whether or not the person expresses annoyance and hostility depends on the individual’s level on Agreeableness. Low scorers do not get angry often or easily. Your level of anger is average.
Depression. This scale measures the tendency to feel sad, dejected, and discouraged. High scorers lack energy and have difficult initiating activities. Low scorers tend to be free from these depressive feelings. Your level of depression is high.
Self-Consciousness. Self-conscious individuals are sensitive about what others think of them. Their concern about rejection and ridicule cause them to feel shy and uncomfortable abound others. They are easily embarrassed and often feel ashamed. Their fears that others will criticize or make fun of them are exaggerated and unrealistic, but their awkwardness and discomfort may make these fears a self-fulfilling prophecy. Low scorers, in contrast, do not suffer from the mistaken impression that everyone is watching and judging them. They do not feel nervous in social situations. Your level or self-consciousness is high.
Immoderation. Immoderate individuals feel strong cravings and urges that they have have difficulty resisting. They tend to be oriented toward short-term pleasures and rewards rather than long- term consequences. Low scorers do not experience strong, irresistible cravings and consequently do not find themselves tempted to overindulge. Your level of immoderation is high.
Vulnerability. High scorers on Vulnerability experience panic, confusion, and helplessness when under pressure or stress. Low scorers feel more poised, confident, and clear-thinking when stressed. Your level of vulnerability is high.

Openness to Experience
Openness to Experience describes a dimension of cognitive style that distinguishes imaginative, creative people from down-to-earth, conventional people. Open people are intellectually curious, appreciative of art, and sensitive to beauty. They tend to be, compared to closed people, more aware of their feelings. They tend to think and act in individualistic and nonconforming ways. Intellectuals typically score high on Openness to Experience; consequently, this factor has also been called Culture or Intellect. Nonetheless, Intellect is probably best regarded as one aspect of openness to experience. Scores on Openness to Experience are only modestly related to years of education and scores on standard intelligent tests.

Another characteristic of the open cognitive style is a facility for thinking in symbols and abstractions far removed from concrete experience. Depending on the individual’s specific intellectual abilities, this symbolic cognition may take the form of mathematical, logical, or geometric thinking, artistic and metaphorical use of language, music composition or performance, or one of the many visual or performing arts. People with low scores on openness to experience tend to have narrow, common interests. They prefer the plain, straightforward, and obvious over the complex, ambiguous, and subtle. They may regard the arts and sciences with suspicion, regarding these endeavors as abstruse or of no practical use. Closed people prefer familiarity over novelty; they are conservative and resistant to change.

Openness is often presented as healthier or more mature by psychologists, who are often themselves open to experience. However, open and closed styles of thinking are useful in different environments. The intellectual style of the open person may serve a professor well, but research has shown that closed thinking is related to superior job performance in police work, sales, and a number of service occupations.

Domain/Facet……….. Score 0——–10——–20——–30——–40——–50——–60——–70——–80——–90——–99

OPENNESS TO EXPERIENCE…..95 ***********************************************************************************************

..Imagination…………..65 *****************************************************************

..Artistic Interests…….28 ****************************

..Emotionality………….99 ***************************************************************************************************

..Adventurousness……….89 *****************************************************************************************

..Intellect…………….84 ************************************************************************************

..Liberalism……………96 ************************************************************************************************

Your score on Openness to Experience is high, indicating you enjoy novelty, variety, and change. You are curious, imaginative, and creative.

Openness Facets

Imagination. To imaginative individuals, the real world is often too plain and ordinary. High scorers on this scale use fantasy as a way of creating a richer, more interesting world. Low scorers are on this scale are more oriented to facts than fantasy. Your level of imagination is average.
Artistic Interests. High scorers on this scale love beauty, both in art and in nature. They become easily involved and absorbed in artistic and natural events. They are not necessarily artistically trained nor talented, although many will be. The defining features of this scale are interest in, and appreciation of natural and artificial beauty. Low scorers lack aesthetic sensitivity and interest in the arts. Your level of artistic interests is low.
Emotionality. Persons high on Emotionality have good access to and awareness of their own feelings. Low scorers are less aware of their feelings and tend not to express their emotions openly. Your level of emotionality is high.
Adventurousness. High scorers on adventurousness are eager to try new activities, travel to foreign lands, and experience different things. They find familiarity and routine boring, and will take a new route home just because it is different. Low scorers tend to feel uncomfortable with change and prefer familiar routines. Your level of adventurousness is high.
Intellect. Intellect and artistic interests are the two most important, central aspects of openness to experience. High scorers on Intellect love to play with ideas. They are open-minded to new and unusual ideas, and like to debate intellectual issues. They enjoy riddles, puzzles, and brain teasers. Low scorers on Intellect prefer dealing with either people or things rather than ideas. They regard intellectual exercises as a waste of time. Intellect should not be equated with intelligence. Intellect is an intellectual style, not an intellectual ability, although high scorers on Intellect score slightly higher than low-Intellect individuals on standardized intelligence tests. Your level of intellect is high.
Liberalism. Psychological liberalism refers to a readiness to challenge authority, convention, and traditional values. In its most extreme form, psychological liberalism can even represent outright hostility toward rules, sympathy for law-breakers, and love of ambiguity, chaos, and disorder. Psychological conservatives prefer the security and stability brought by conformity to tradition. Psychological liberalism and conservatism are not identical to political affiliation, but certainly incline individuals toward certain political parties. Your level of liberalism is high.

Digging Up The Past

I can’t remember if I mentioned this here before but quite a while ago I put in a request to have access to all the information Social Services hold on myself and my mother. I can’t remember a lot about what happened back then, and I am hoping to get a better understanding of what happened when. I don’t expect to find any surprises, I am just looking to see my past in a little more detail than my memory allows – to bring the image into focus so to speak.

I have just received notification that the files are now ready (before they are released all personal information about third parties has to be redacted in line with the Data Protection Act). I have been invited to go for a “review” session, in which I will have the opportunity to ask any questions I may have.

I am nervous about this, although I don’t know why. I suppose simply because it is going to be painful to think about my mother in such detail. And my sister.

Digging Up The Past

I can’t remember if I mentioned this here before but quite a while ago I put in a request to have access to all the information Social Services hold on myself and my mother. I can’t remember a lot about what happened back then, and I am hoping to get a better understanding of what happened when. I don’t expect to find any surprises, I am just looking to see my past in a little more detail than my memory allows – to bring the image into focus so to speak.

I have just received notification that the files are now ready (before they are released all personal information about third parties has to be redacted in line with the Data Protection Act). I have been invited to go for a “review” session, in which I will have the opportunity to ask any questions I may have.

I am nervous about this, although I don’t know why. I suppose simply because it is going to be painful to think about my mother in such detail. And my sister.

Finding my Feet

It feels like things have gone from zero to sixty in no time at all and I’m left behind spinning on the spot. Things aren’t that bad really, but I am feeling like I am struggling to keep up!

I have been given a new piece of work on placement and I feel completely out of my depth! I am supposed to be reviewing research and providing a report along the lines of “what psychological models underpin effective treatment in a forensic setting?” I am having two main problems though, one is that I know almost nothing about psychological models used in offender treatment (the only one I am familiar with is DiClemente and Prochaska’s Stages of Change model). The next problem is my tendency to overdo things and get pulled off at angles (that is not a euphamism! I can already guess who of you are smirking right now!). I suppose this comes from my need to feel like I really understand something before I can comfortably write about it, so rather than just researching the title topic I have a habit of trying to read all the literature on the general topic! I currently have about two hundred pages of articles and six books I am intending to read. Of course realistically this just isn’t going to happen!

And I’m so damn exhausted all the time!

I am completely exhausted at the moment, I had forgotten how much I struggled with early starts and full working days. But I couldn’t be happier with my placement! I am officially a ‘student psychologist’ on the DASS (Drugs and Alcohol Support Service) team, and have already had some clinical experience observing some group sessions. As well as having real chances to shadow clinical work (tomorrow I will observe a 1-to-1 session with a client) I am also getting the opportunity to do some work which will actually make a difference. Some of it admin/auditing, but hopefully I will be going on to do some research looking into the links between mental health and criminal behaviour. I just wish I could read faster – I already have a list of four books and about twenty journal articles to read!

I love that I am being treated like a useful member of the team, like a permanent employee. With this comes all the training given to full-time staff, a week and a half of induction :) :P

Anyway, must sleep, will update more soon! X

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 375 other followers