Are Kids Worse Off, or Just More Honest?

This press release from the American Psychological Association has me questioning what they're actually trying to say. I mean, the headline is that college students are "exhibiting" more severe mental illness these days. But does that mean that they're suffering from more severe illness?

What I'm getting at is that just because more college students are reporting (and seeking help for) mental illness now, isn't it possible that there were just as many students in the past who suffered in silence? Let's face it: there's a stigma attached to mental illness, and I think that the current prejudice against mental illness and the people who admit to suffering from it is not nearly as pronounced as it has been in years past. So it's all well and good to call it something like "a shift in the needs of students seeking counseling services," (as John Guthman, director of student counseling services at Hofstra University calls it) but isn't it possible that this is something that they have consistently needed but were afraid to ask for?

Maybe I'm getting wound up about nothing, but I have serious problems with the language used in large parts of the APA's press release. "More students are coming to college with pre-existing mental health difficulties"? Sounds to me like another way of saying "they were like that when they got here!"

Another Way to Screw Up Your Kids

Look out, world! Another scientific study has been published to tell you something you already knew! That's right, the Cornell College of Human Ecology has announced that playing favorites with your children will make them depressed adults.

I will concede that the study had an interesting finding: even the favored children end up with problems. I'm not overflowing with sympathy for them, but they have to put up with the pressure of their parents' expectations, and they end up shouldering the resentment of their less-favored siblings. So even the winners end up losers when parents play favorites.

The sad thing is that some parents don't even realize that they're treating their children unequally. 30% of mothers surveyed said that they treated their children equally, while only 15% of children felt equally treated. That's right, you can cause lasting emotional damage without even trying! Hooray?

Profits or Predators Don't Matter, We're All Doomed

I don't think this study will change much in the long run, but it turns out that we might not properly understand what drives the commercial fishing industry. The currently accepted theory is that fishermen use a "top down" approach, starting with predators at the top of the food chain (notably tuna and halibut). Once fishing reduces their population and catches dwindle, fishermen move further down the food chain pulling in the fish those predators used to eat until those numbers dwindle, and so on.

According to the University of Washington, it turns out that our motivations may be more economic than evolutionary. Commercial fisheries are (understandably) motivated to catch whatever fish is the most profitable. This means that governments can influence conservation efforts and maintain sustainable levels of fishing by setting price controls on seafood.

Will it work, though? I'm pessimistic. Governments are going to be motivated by what is politically popular, and I don't think it would be possible to arrange for the kind of national cooperation required to have a lasting effect on ocean populations. We should all cultivate a taste for jellyfish, since they're the only thing that has managed to thrive thanks to our efforts.

OMG! DRAMA!

Does talking about your problems with someone make them better, or worse? Actually, go back a step. How to you talk about your problems with people? Are you trying to find solutions, or do you just want people to pay attention to you while you complain?

Remember all the drama of high school? The endless discussion about who got in a fight/started dating/etc.? I can only imagine how much worse it is with crap like twitter and instant/text messaging. So, Stony Brook University started looking at what kind of effects it has on them (and went with the exciting study name "Clarifying co-rumination: Associations with internalizing symptoms and romantic involvement among adolescent girls").

Their studies show that frequent discussion of problems can lead to depression or anxiety. I'm not sure they aren't putting the cart before the horse, though. Isn't it equally possible that depressed or anxious people spend more time running to their friends to talk about how worried they are?

Social Disease

Yeah, so it's been a while since I posted. That's because a virus wiped out my computer, and I'm still kind of pissed about it.

I wasn't looking at porn sites, I wasn't visiting shady offshore gambling sites, and I wasn't trying to download pirated movies. I was just using a popular widget that lets people hop from blog to blog (I'm sure you know the one) when an error message came up and my computer crashed, never again able to restart successfully.

Yes, I have virus protection software. Yes, it is kept current with the latest definitions. Yes, I avoid opening attachments in e-mails, especially when they're from people I don't know. That's why I am convinced that some malicious code was passed onto me when I decided to "drop" in on someone else's blog.

What will this mean for the future of my participation in social networking sites? Now that I've got a new computer and restored access to the internet, I'm not sure. I'm certainly going to be much more suspicious of bloggers I don't know.

Born Leaders (Gossips/Flirts/Wallflowers, etc.)

According to studies, your role in (and the size of) your social network is a function of your genetic code. Whether you're the central hub in a network of interconnected acquaintances or an outlier with a few friends who don't know each other, your position is apparently predicted by your genes.

To get these results, they studied fraternal and identical twins. The identical twins had the same number of people who knew them as friends, and those friends had an equal chance of knowing each other. Fraternal twins had social networks of differing "shapes," with different numbers of friends and a varying likelihood of whether or not those friends knew each other.

Almost as interesting as the unsung breakthrough itself is the ability of the professors involved to milk a concept for all the sweet, sweet grant money that they can get their hands on. That's right. Research into social networks should sound familiar for good reason--these same two professors from Harvard Medical School and UC San Diego were in the news previously for using grant money to research how social networks spread happiness.

I wish I had paid more attention in school. Then I'd be able to get people to pay me for spending all my time on myspace thoroughly researching social networks like these two professors.

Cheer Up, You'll Be Incapacitated

And that will be good for your marriage. Brigham Young University now has research showing that when someone can't do normal daily activities, they end up being happier in their marriage. The people they were married to? Eh, it's a mixed bag.

Men and women end up happier in their marriages if they become disabled. Men with disabled wives become happier in their marriage, while women with disabled husbands don't care very much (about the disability, that is. They generally weren't more or less happy with the marriage than they were before the disability).

I guess they're happier because they're forced to spend more time with each other getting through the chores of the day. That has to be the reason, right? After all, it's not like people answering questionnaires would lie because they felt guilty about resentment for being burdened with the care of a spouse, right?

I just hope my son doesn't see this study and try to cripple me with a sledgehammer so he can bring mommy and daddy back together.

Kick Unhappy Friends to the Curb

Also, the people at the center of social networks are happier.

UC San Diego and Harvard Medical School are publishing research in the British Medical Journal discussing happiness spreading through social networks. No, they're not involving sites like myspace, linkedin, or facebook because they're analyzing data collected from 1983 to 2003. Still, they tracked almost 5,000 people and their moods, determining that happy people keep happy friends, and an increased number of social contacts was associated with happier people.

Mind you, this is all self-reporting using statements like "I feel hopeful about the future" and "I felt that I was just as good as other people," so it's kind of cute that they're appling percentages to the amount of happiness that's being spread around, but I guess that's how science works.

The good news? Happiness is supposed to spread. The study cites a 15% increase in happiness if directly connected to a happy person, a 10% increase if connected to the friend of a happy person, and 6% if it's one step further out than that.

The bad news is that while having a happy friend gives you a 9% greater chance of being happy yourself, having an unhappy friend makes you 7% less likely to be happy.

So, what does this study mean for you? Is it important for you to keep up a good front, to seem happy so you keep your friends happy? Or is it time to trim the dead wood and get rid of unhappy friends who are dragging you down, while you go out to look for some happier people?

Making Night Shifts Suck More to Suck Less

I can't imagine what a pain in the ass it must be to make a living working the night shift. I had a friend who worked nights at the post office, unloading and sorting all the mail that came in on the trucks through the night, and he hated it. He said that even on his days off, he still couldn't feel like a normal person, because everyone he knew was operating on a completely different schedule.

So, Rush University Medical Center looked into night shift workers. They're trying to make sure that night shift employees are efficient. I guess that they're workin' for the Man, trying to squeeze every last drop of productivity out of the workers, but whatever.

The medical center is now claiming that people can offset some of the difficulties of adapting to night shift work, as long as you are strict about monitoring when you sleep and make sure to wear wicked dark sunglasses when outside in the daytime. It sounds like a hassle, but I guess that the trade off is that you're less likely to hate your job as much. Or, you still hate it as much but manage to work more efficiently.

The good news is that they're calling it a "compromise" adaptation, in that people aren't sleeping entirely through the daytime, they're just reducing the hours that they spend awake during the day. It still sounds like it kind of sucks, though. How high would the pay have to be before you considered a night shift job?

Does Church Make You Feel In Control?

Or does the feeling that you have some control over your life make you more likely to go to church?

The University of Toronto has uncovered a link between religious devotion and the feeling that one has personal control over events in one's life. (Yes, I know that using "one" in that sentence was awkward, but it's tough to convey what they're studying in a simple sentence.)

Do you think you have control over your life? Do you spend much time in church, or observing religious rituals? The UT study expected to find that people who were very involved with religious activities felt as though they had less control. After all, the universe supposed to follow God's plan, right? And who are we to question (or worse yet, influence!) what God does? I think it's fine for people to let the church play an active role in their lives, as long as it's not telling them to do things that are harmful.

The question that it raises for me is which is the cause, and which is the effect. Does going to church help people feel like they are taking more control over the events around them? Or do people go to church because they already think that they can control things in their lives, and they are using prayer to exert that control?

First Shots Fired in War on Christmas

Why does the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) hate Christmas so much? Alternatively, what do they gain from pushing their pro-sprinkler agenda? Finally, what should I have chosen as my college major to land a job setting things on fire for money?

That's right. NIST sets Christmas trees on fire. And then videotapes it. How's that for a research project?

The videos were made to show the effectiveness of sprinkler systems in stopping fires, and used Christmas trees to put a seasonal spin on their message. I don't plan on installing a sprinkler system anytime soon, but it looks like it's something I should think about. Dying in a house fire is not on my list of things to do in the new year.

Chaos Kills in the Workplace

How many studies have to be released about lousy bosses before people realize that they are a serious health hazard? I mean honestly, they can do worse than kill a company. The really bad ones keep the company going long enough to completely destroy all their employees.

The Health Behavior News Service is taking a timid stance on the matter but admitting that instability in the workplace MIGHT lead to increased risk of heart attacks.

I guess that Finland has just wrapped up a study showing that your risk of heart attack is 1.8 times higher in a disorganized setting than it is in an organized one. By "organized," we're talking clear division of tasks, workers who understand their job responsibilities and what they're being judged on, and how everyone is supposed to work together.

I don't think I've ever worked at a job like that. I guess I'd better start looking out for my heart.

Churches Are Bad for Your Mind

It's sad, really.

I'm a fan of churches, and I think that they have a place in a healthy society. We neglect our spirituality only at a terrible cost.

The problem is that church authorities, like everyone else, can end up causing problems when they're not careful about applying their authority. Like, for example, if someone went to their church for help with a mental illness and was told that there was nothing wrong with them.

A study at Baylor University found that not only do more people turn to the clergy first for help when in mental distress, but also that the church frequently discourages them from seeing a medical health professional.

Depression is serious business. So are other mental illnesses like bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. And yet when 293 Christians finally found the courage to try and seek help for their problems, more than 32% of them were dismissed; told that they didn't "really" have a mental illness, that it was just "personal sin, lack of faith, or demonic involvement."

Why do Priests hate Doctors?

How to Raise a Victim

I used to call them "disaster magnets" in college. You know, the people who always had things going wrong? Their parents were on disability, their (other) friends committed suicide, they were sexually assaulted, their landlords were going to evict them, their exes were stalking them, etc. They were drama central, and I was always afraid to be around them for extended periods of time in case whatever they had was contagious.

Well, the Archives of General Psychiatry says that they were raised that way. In fact, some families can raise children who are "consistently victimized," and these "chronic victims" usually come from poor backgrounds and have strict parents. You all remember where strict parenting leads, right?

The study is suggesting that these children need "early preventive interventions," and I agree for the most part. The thing is that the research appears to be based on Canadians. I'm not sure if that excludes the results or gives it more validity (ZING! I'm just kidding, Canadians, you're good people with great syrup and a fabulous hockey tradition.)

Why Clean Up a Neighborhood You Hate?

Ohio State University has been asking some questions about how satisfied residents are with their neighborhoods, and came up with some interesting answers. You know those bad parts of town that are run down and grubby looking? Well, they got that way because the residents have bigger concerns.

Short version: Happy residents who were satisfied with their neighborhoods said they were satisfied because of things like public transportation, access to recreational opportunities, distance from family and friends, and appearance. People who were dissatisfied said that they were unhappy because of violence, and feared for their safety. The happy residents didn't mention crime, and the unhappy residents didn't complain about housing density.

So, route the police patrols through the unhappy neighborhoods and the bus lines through the happy neighborhoods and it's problem solved, I guess.

Think It, But Don't Feel It

We all have negative experiences that we want to forget. You know, stuff that just gets you so worked up that even remembering it gets you bent out of shape? Well, it turns out that if we want to deal with our psychological issues, to get over them and move on, we've got to detach ourselves from the emotions involved.

Nothing new, right? Well, people are studying it anyway, and they now have scientific evidence to back up common sense. Processing the emotions involved in a traumatic event requires you to distance yourself, so that you're not feeling the emotions associated with it as intensely.

Of course, that's easier said than done, since the whole reason you should be reviewing the event is so that you can think about it without getting emotional.

A Happy Kidney Is a Living Kidney

By which I mean that going into dialysis depressed will get you killed.

Depressed patients on dialysis are almost two times more likely to be hospitalized or die within a year compared to their non-depressed counterparts. It looks like an an effective treatment for depression really has the potential to save lives.

But what could there be for patients to get depressed about? I mean, the healthcare system is in such great shape!

Catfights in the Workplace

Are totally hot.

That's why women should report to female supervisors, as has been proven by science. The University of Toronto studied stress in the workplace and found that women working under a female supervisor reported more distress than women working for a male supervisor. I'm sure that when they say "distress," they are referring solely to the tensions that build steadily until they boil over into an explosion of hot girl-versus-girl action.

Guys, on the other hand, find their supervisors annoying no matter what their gender may be. Until the supervisor gets sick of their bad attitude and fires them.

The happiest employees (as relative as "happy" can get on the job, read: employees with lowest distress levels and fewest physical symptoms) were the ones who reported to a pair of supervisors, one male and one female.

How to Fire Someone

Okay, you've heard about what to do if you're a new employee. Now it's time to hear from the other side about how to fire an old employee. Old as in establshed at the company, not as in over a certain age, because that would be discrimination. Although I suppose that these tips could be used to fire new employees as well.

The University of New Hampshire felt that it was important to issue a series of suggestions on the most effective ways to fire employees. It's pretty basic stuff, be respectful, be clear as to what's happening, don't create ambiguity, etc. Still, there are some terrible bosses out there who absoultely need that kind of thing spelled out for them.

No matter how you slice it, getting fired is still going to suck for the employee.

Your Lousy Boss Is Trying To Kill You

Oh, science, you never go far enough. Take, for example, a recent study in workplace health. The American College of Environmental Medicine says that good leadership makes its employees healthier. Specifically cited were reduced sick leave and disability time taken by employees whose bosses rated higher for positive leadership attributes.

Reduced compared to what? Are these so-called "good leaders" actually improving the health of their employees, or are they just not damaging their employees? Because that's what I'd like to know.

I think that the health benefits from good leaders and mediocre leaders would be neck-and-neck, but the bad leaders drive employees out of the office, making them take sick days when they can't put up with the stupidity, futility, and redundancy enforced by so many terrible employers who have no idea how to run a business or motivate an employee.

The beatings will stop when the morale improves. Maybe we can deal with crappy bosses if we didn't have to spend so many days with them.