Debate 3 & 4 PDF

Preview

Summary

Debate...

Description

DEBATE 3: POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY DOES NOT MAKE US HAPPIER! Opening Statement: (Marianny) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2016/09/23/forcing-positive-thinkingwont-make-you-happy-says-this-harvard-psychologist/? noredirect=on&utm_term=.aa1894790355 Positive psychology does not make us happier A Harvard Medical School Professor and psychologist Susan David researched, many people trying to block certain emotions by ignoring them, drinking, or in cases taking medical drugs or recreational drugs. Usually you never see anyone becoming angry or feeling sad or even guilty about something, if we truly didn’t care about it. If we keep pushing our emotions aside, then fundamentally we are “choosing not to learn about ourselves”. Instead, we would choose to ignore what is truly important to us, such as our values, we tend to repeat to ourselves “think positive” and then put the hurt to aside. David also stated in her research what if we push our thoughts and emotions aside, in this case then they tend to come back stronger. In psychology, we have what we call “leakage”. In which we try not to put our mind to something, yet it comes back even more magnified and we tend to rethink things over and over again non-stop. Thus, pushing our thoughts and emotions aside and using positive psychology would not make us any happier. Article about virtues and trying to focus on strengths, yet you cannot only focus on strengths because focusing on weaknesses instead of putting them aside, then it can then bring out the strengths. You can’t start anywhere without also taking into consideration our weaknesses (Tiffany): The value of positive emotions by Barbara Fredrickson Negative emotions are responsible for much of what runs the world. Positive emotions can be too complicated to study. Joy and amusement are not much different from one another, therefore harder to read. Negative emotions are easier to read from someone’s body language or look on the face. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17439760.2015.1117131 Positive Psychology in context by Sara Algoe Actions of gratitude more times than not, get a response whether positive or negative. “Likely has an acute psychological effect on the person who is the target”. In the study only SOME of the participants improved their relationships by expressing gratitude but others DID NOT because of the emotional barrier. Some individuals are raised without emotional support or positivity and may not know how to

react to positive people or situations. They may be more closed off and unable to understand positive acts from others. They may come off negative when realistically not everyone reacts positively or has a positive face on.

Dennis Positive Psychology does not make us happier Positive Psychology, based on research, focuses more on correlations with virtue as opposed to a feeling of happiness. https://www.cpa.ca/docs/File/Students/MindPad/articles/v3.1-14_Buhr.pdf

Catarina http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/10382-the-unhappy-truth-about-positive-psychology

Neglecting human vulnerability and self-blindness not only provides a lopsided view of life; it profoundly compromises the very strategies Seligman and other proponents of positive psychology, like Sonja Lyubomirsky, author of "The How of Happiness: A Scientific Approach to Getting the Life You Want," recommend for change. It's life enhancing to focus on the positive potential we all have, to identify and increase our character strengths, to celebrate what went well in our day, savor good memories, keep gratitude journals and perform unexpected acts of kindness, as positive psychologists propose. But without also addressing scary and troubling feelings and confronting our remarkable capacity for self-deception and our hidden strategies for self-protection, even the most earnest "happiness interventions" will be undermined. Seligman illustrates this when he recounts how his daughter still complains about his negativity. As does Gretchen Rubin, author of "The Happiness Project," who writes: "I am happy, but I'm not as happy as I should be." She admits that despite her yearlong "happiness project," with its charts and resolutions, in "some ways I'd made myself less happy." Focusing on the positive by itself will not heal deeper psychological wounds; they must be addressed on an emotional and somatic level. And this is why I am doubtful the Army resilience training program will succeed.

DEBATE 4: PSYCHIATRIC MEDICATIONS ARE SAFE! Opening Statement: (Marianny) https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/mental-health-medications/index.shtml According to the National Institute of Mental Health, Of course, depending on the illness one may be experiencing, there are always options for what may be the best and most effective treatment plan for the patient/ client. Now, according to the National Institute of Mental Health, most importantly there would be a mental health professional, in which would provide the effective treatment/ medication; essentially making sure something does not go wrong in the process. Also, medications such as for anxiety (anti-anxiety medications) would reduce its’ symptoms. These symptoms may include yet may not be limited to panic attacks, extreme fear or worry. There are also medications to manage psychosis. This group of people with this illness, have the tendency to have some loss with reality, including delusions or hallucinations. These are also symptoms of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or even severe depression. Now, if these medications were not to be safe, it would not reduce the symptoms to almost not having them at all and it does. As for schizophrenia, which is incurable, antipsychotics that would essentially control the symptoms and voices. In order to live what we call a “normal life”. addiction? (Tiffany): https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/mental-health-medications/index.shtml The National Institute of Mental Health Medications improve the symptoms the patient is having, for example depressive symptoms will fade while on the medication. Taking medicine at an adequate dose and finding the one that best fits you. The doctor is there to help you take the right dose, find the right medication and help you ease off the medicine when you are done with it. https://psychiatristscottsdale.com/treatment-approach/benefits-of-medication/ Scottsdale Mental Healthcare Certain illnesses left untreated can be detrimental to the brain. SSRIs actually replace damaged cells in the brain and replace them with new ones. Using the full dose is the best way to treat the illness. Can cure depression, anxiety, bipolar, ADHD, and schizophrenia

Ivanna https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12504263/

https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/mental-health-medications/index.shtml

Understanding Your Medications If you are prescribed a medication, be sure that you: ● Tell the doctor about all medications and vitamin supplements you are already taking. ● Remind your doctor about any allergies and any problems you have had with medicines. ● Understand how to take the medicine before you start using it and take your medicine as instructed. ● Don't take medicines prescribed for another person or give yours to someone else. ● Call your doctor right away if you have any problems with your medicine or if you are worried that it might be doing more harm than good. Your doctor may be able to adjust the dose or change your prescription to a different one that may work better for you. ● Report serious side effects to the FDA MedWatch Adverse Event

Antidepressants are medications commonly used to treat depression. Antidepressants are also used for other health conditions, such as anxiety, pain and insomnia. Although antidepressants are not FDA-approved specifically to treat ADHD, antidepressants are sometimes used to treat ADHD in adults. The most popular types of antidepressants are called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (

Are Psychiatric Medications Safe? (Yes) Ø Psychiatric medications are safe, and they enable individuals to function in society. Ø According to the National Institute of Mental Health (2016), Antipsychotic medications are often used in combination with other medications to treat delirium, dementia, and mental health conditions, including: ● Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) ● Severe Depression ● Eating Disorders ● Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) ● Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD)

Generalized Anxiety Disorder Ø Antipsychotic medicines do not cure these conditions. They are used to help relieve symptoms and improve quality of life (NIMH, 2016). Ø Antidepressants, especially SSRIs, are safe during pregnancy. However, antidepressant medications do cross the placental barrier and may reach the fetus. Birth defects or other problems are possible, but they are very rare. The effects of antidepressants on childhood development remain under study (NIMH, 2016). ●

Reference National Institute of Mental Health. (2016). Mental Health Medications. Retrieved from https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/mental-health-medications/index.shtml Jennifer Marroquin

Debate 3: Can Positive Psychology Make Us Happier: (NO) Laurel C. Newman and Randy J. Larsen “How Much of Our Happiness is Within Our Control? Original Essay (2009) Psychologists Laurel Newman and Rand Larsen argued that most of what influences our long term happiness is outside of our control.

The Declaration of Independence list the pursuit of happiness as an unalienable right but in 1776 there was no psychological research to teach US citizens how to be happy. Then the country of Bhutan for instance has a Gross National Happiness index to help guide government policy (the wellbeing of the population). Then in the western world of psychological research Maslow's hierarchy of needs seem to be at play. Maslow’s hierarchy where we must satisfy our basic needs (hunger) before we are concern ourselves with other needs like happiness and flourishing. Recently happiness has become a popular emphasis of the movement where there are psychological researchers attempting to answer questions like: Is happiness biologically based? Is it environmental? How much is under our personal control?

In an article called “The Science of Self-Help: Translating Positive Psychology Research into Increased Individual Happiness” by Stephen Schuller and Acacia Parks: argue that yes that previous research has provided substantial evidence that individual evidence can increase.They believed that an individual happiness can be achieved by imitating the behaviors of those who are naturally happy. In another article “How Much Of Our Happiness is Within Our Control?” by Laurel Newman and Randy Larsen argued that yes they agree that that some happiness is attributed to genetics, but that most life changing events (the ones affect our happiness) are out of peoples control. Laurel Newman and Randy Larsen believe that psychologists should be cautious before making announcements how people can make themselves happier and that the information that says that 40% of our happiness is within our control is misleading. The purpose of the Laurel Newman and Randy Larsen article is not to insist that we have absolute zero control of our own happiness but it is to summarize that evidence suggests that we have much less control over it. The Heritability of Happiness: In 1989 a group of researchers began a study of twins called the Minnesota Twin Family Study: In this research identical twins. Fraternal twins, and other family members were used to determine the proportion of the variation in the public's happiness scores that is caused by genetic factors this is called the Heritability of Happiness. David Lykken and Auke Tellegen who were two of the researchers published a paper reporting that the heritability is around .50 which means that half of the variability we see in population happiness is caused by genes and the other half is caused by other things. This study showed that we cannot change our genes but that there is at least one Major cause of happiness that lies outside our control. The Hedonic treadmill: In 1978 Brickman Coates and Janoff-Bulman published a well known study that showed

people who have had something good happen to them being good or bad: example winning the lottery or a major tragedy like paraplegics that they return to their normal level of happiness within a year following the event. (There was a reanalysis on the data from the study showed that paraplegics level of happiness never really returned to their normal baseline. But follow up research has been done related to the study of Brickman Coates and Janoff-Bulman, and most psychologists agree that people do adapt emotionally to the good and the bad that happens in life and have a tendency to remain near their preexisting level of happiness. This has been called the Hedonic Treadmill Theory: this term mean that no matter how fast or slow people run they stay in the same place (emotionally) The Famous 40 percent: Sonja Lyubomirsky is often cited by positive psychologists and the media as as the person who has cracked the “happiness code”. She wrote a book called The How of Happiness: A New Approach to Getting the Life you Want In her research she summarizes that happiness is 50% heritable and 10% due to well-studied demographic variables. And the remaining 40% is within our control. The Problems: She misuses heritability estimates which is the proportion of individual differences or variations in scores among a group of people that can be attributed to their genes. She describes variation in a group but it not able to apply it to an individual. In her 40% estimate includes “everything else” besides genes and the demographic variables that were studied. So what does everything else mean? The “everything else” leaves room for many situational and personality variables that can have an impact on our emotional state. Examples can be home foreclosures, lost jobs, unfaithful spouses, chronic illness and many more. And the important question to this is which variable matters the most and to what extent do we actually have control to these variables?

Debate 4: Are Psychiatric Medications Safe? (Yes) Robert H. Howland, from “Do PSychiatric Medication Cause More Harm than Good?” Journal of Psychosocial Nursing (2015) Howland argues that even though medication may be dangerous in some circumstances the history of psychiatric pharmacology that the benefit outweighs the bad. Questions regarding the use and the safety of psychiatric medication has been asked since the first time it came out in the mid 20th century. In the 1950s the invention of chlorpromazine caused many people to be critical of this new drug but later on it became an effective way of treating schizophrenia as well as other psychotic disorders.

In Howland’s article he states the progress that has been made on the availability of medication and how it has helped improve the lives of those who have mental disorders. He explains that people are better off today with new treatment options than they would have been 60 years ago. Howland addresses the criticism of psychiatric medication use which says that it can increase suicide and death rates but he argues that there is no suggestions that these rates are not positively correlated with the increase of medication usage. It is difficult to answer if psychiatric drugs do more harm than good because of the complexity of defining and measuring concepts of harm and good because it pertains to treating or not treating psychiatric disorders with medication. Before the 1955 the history of psychiatric therapeutics included the following treatments: trephination, exorcism and prayer, mesmerism, asylum treatment using isolation and physical restraints, psychoanalysis, etc. In 1955 there was approximately 560,000 mentally ill patients in public psychiatric hospitals. In 1994 the number dropped to less than 72,000 patients and the number is much less today. If we include private psychiatric hospitals general hospitals, and the reduction of psychiatric beds per 100,000 populations has dropped from 264 in 1970 to 112 in 1998 and the duration of hospital stay had also decreased. Discharge occurred for 3 reasons: 1. The advent of psychotropic drugs 2. The social political movement in favor of community mental health services 3. Financial cost shifting from federal to state government The transition from inpatient to outpatient treatment facilitated by the use of psychiatric drugs has been beneficial for patients and families.

Debate 3: Can Positive Psychology Make Us Happier: (NO) Laurel C. Newman and Randy J. Larsen “How Much of Our Happiness is Within Our Control? Original Essay (2009) Psychologists Laurel Newman and Rand Larsen argued that most of what influences our long term happiness is outside of our control. The Declaration of Independence list the pursuit of happiness as an unalienable right but in 1776 there was no psychological research to teach US citizens how to be happy. Then the country of Bhutan for instance has a Gross National Happiness index to help guide government policy (the wellbeing of the population). Then in the western world of psychological research Maslow's hierarchy of needs seem to be at play. Maslow’s hierarchy where we must satisfy our basic needs (hunger) before we are concern ourselves with other needs like happiness and flourishing.

Recently happiness has become a popular emphasis of the movement where there are psychological researchers attempting to answer questions like: Is happiness biologically based? Is it environmental? How much is under our personal control? In an article called “The Science of Self-Help: Translating Positive Psychology Research into Increased Individual Happiness” by Stephen Schuller and Acacia Parks: argue that yes that previous research has provided substantial evidence that individual evidence can increase.They believed that an individual happiness can be achieved by imitating the behaviors of those who are naturally happy. In another article “How Much Of Our Happiness is Within Our Control?” by Laurel Newman and Randy Larsen argued that yes they agree that that some happiness is attributed to genetics, but that most life changing events (the ones affect our happiness) are out of peoples control. Laurel Newman and Randy Larsen believe that psychologists should be cautious before making announcements how people can make themselves happier and that the information that says that 40% of our happiness is within our control is misleading. The purpose of the Laurel Newman and Randy Larsen article is not to insist that we have absolute zero control of our own happiness but it is to summarize that evidence suggests that we have much less control over it. The Heritability of Happiness: In 1989 a group of researchers began a study of twins called the Minnesota Twin Family Study: In this research identical twins. Fraternal twins, and other family members were used to determine the proportion of the variation in the public's happiness scores that is caused by genetic factors this is called the Heritability of Happiness. David Lykken and Auke Tellegen who were two of the researchers published a paper reporting that the heritability is around .50 which means that half of the variability we see in population happiness is caused by genes and the other half is caused by other things. This study showed that we cannot change our genes but that there is at least one Major

cause of happiness that lies outside our control. The Hedonic treadmill: In 1978 Brickman Coates and Janoff-Bulman published a well known study that showed people who have had something good happen to them being good or bad: example winning the lottery or a major tragedy like paraplegics that they return to their normal level of happiness within a year following the event. (There was a reanalysis on the data from the study showed that paraplegics level of happiness never really returned to their normal baseline. But follow up research has been done related to the study of Brickman Coates and Janoff-Bulman, ...