Section 5-0: (Aside) Definitions and circular reasoning.

This section will deal primarily with stress... we will get to that, its nice to break up the flow every now and then, kick back, and take things easy. I will do so now in two different ways, firstly, by delaying the talk about stress. Secondly, I will not be including any pictures in this aside... this is to give myself a break from hunting down the "perfect image" to go along with each article while still maintaining what I hope you, the reader can see as a fairly nice and established flow to things. Still with me? haven't fallen asleep yet? great.

Let's talk about circular reasoning. Circular reasoning has come up twice in fairly significant ways throughout the course of the semester. The first time we observe it is in discussion of William Sheldons constitutional theory or body type personality (as an aside to the aside... was it an unwritten rule somewhere that to study psychology your name had to be William or James?) A prime example of his theory states that a "mesomorph", which is someone who is "sturdy, athletic, big muscled" has a personality described as "love for physical activity" if you can't see the circular reasoning yet allow me to paraphrase the example used in the linked wiki page.

"Mesomorphs love physical activity, because people with muscular bodies enjoy exercising"

Not only do we know this not to be true (unfortunately for the rest of us, some people have metabolisms that   make them naturally muscular with little or no effort on their part) but very little is described about each somatotype aside from what would typically result due to dietary habits. When Sheldon does make a stretch to describe secondary aspects such as "all endomorphs (heavier set) are jolly", the scientific studies on the matter fall apart, not holding up to scrutiny.

"Frank drinks too much because he is an alcoholic"

This phrase is quoted directly from the textbook and is the second example of circular reasoning we encounter in our studies. This time around, however, the authors acknowledge that this IS circular reasoning and provides us with tools to avoid getting into just that. The following information is taken directly from the text (linked in an earlier section).

In order to avoid circular reasoning, employ the following skills when thinking critically: Understand the way definitions shape how people will think about issues, Identify the source of those definitions, and Avoid the logical fallacy in working with definitions and labels, as labels do not have any explanatory value.

To paraphrase I find that when trying to describe a new topic to an individual, especially something that may be theoretical in nature, try your best to describe it as you would to an individual new to the english language. while it is okay to assume a basic understanding in language. If you remove labels and complicated terminology, and are still able to get your point across, you are probably doing a more effective job of defining what you are trying to.


...Thats all for this aside. Lets move on to everyone's least favorite topic. STRESS!

Section 5-1: Conflict? What Conflict?

Moving onto stress, when the core concepts for this entry were put to paper, it was in a period in which we would not see our professor at all between two separate examinations... which is stressful! Now, the only exam left to write is the final... also stressful! In the section of the text regarding stressors we are introduced to the three different types of conflict. These conflict types are Approach-Approach, Approach-Avoidance, and Avoidance-Avoidance.

Why is this image relevant to stress? As a Male you are looking at what causes 80+% of stress over a lifetime.
(Also, lighten up, its a joke.)
-Image courtesy of roaringwomen.com-

As an individual who spent the majority of the past two years engaged in an abusive relationship, I have experienced more than my fair share of approach-avoidance conflicts. This is due largely to the fact that simple daily decisions like 'what brand of detergent to buy' or 'what to make for dinner' suddenly carry an element of avoidance to them because any of these seemingly simple decisions would give my partner an opportunity to express displeasure or dissatisfaction with me. I was constantly plagued by vacillation (indecision) and overwhelming stress which has taken significant time to overcome and cope with. Through family and social supports, as well as a healthy dose of self-inflection I am now pleased to say that I cope very well in even some of the most stressful environments... even though certain stress measurement tools (check out the next section!) would describe me as someone who should be so stressed that they are beyond the point of functioning.

My new outlook on stress has me regard it as very much a personal idea and that you cannot suffer from stress unless you allow yourself to be stressed. I am very critical of the idea of stress now, scales that measure it... and to paraphrase the text, "There's little reason to believe that any event is inherently or inevitably stressful."

Section 5-2: The Subjective Nature of Stress

Continuing on from the last section where I state that stress is a personal and therefore subjective experience I present to you both a quote and a stress "measuring system"

"If a person has less than 150 life change units they have a 30% chance of suffering from stress. 150-299 life change units equates to a 50% chance of suffering from stress. Over 300 life change units means a person has an 80% chance of developing a stress related illness" 

-Quoted from http://www.simplypsychology.org/SRRS/html

The measuring system that calculates these life change units is called the "Social Readjustment Rating Scale", to give you a sample of some of the items included in the scale, here are my own personal results from the application.

So what do you think? 80% chance of developing 3 stress illnesses?
Or do you think I have a 240% chance of having one?

Not to say that the scale is completely "out to lunch"... I did experience PTSD in the last year, and it did take a while for me to recover from that experience including some medication. A lot of these events occured Post-PTSD though, and I have not suffered a second bout nor have I suffered from any major stress.. I am much better able to deal now with both Acute and Chronic stressors in my life.

How I actually feel most days
-Courtesy of orignialstruttingleo.tumblr.com-

How I should feel constantly according to SRRS
-Courtesy of myfofa.com.au-

The SRRS also fails to take into account the subjective nature of stress and the fact that what may appear as stressful to one individual may be either of little/no importance to one individual or even perhaps pleasing... or vice versa. There are two examples that apply to myself. The first of which is beginning school. This event carries a fairly significant 26 points on the SRRS scale. For me, after an extended absence from post-secondary and being in a position where I didn't know if it would even be possible for me to begin attending post secondary again I was delighted to find out I had been accepted into post secondary studies... This in fact was one of the highlights of my year.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, Christmas nets a very minor 12 points... it doesn't matter if you are a practicing catholic, Christmas is celebrated around the world in some form or another. Is it fair then, to assign a universal number for an event which is not experienced in a universal way? In fact for myself last year Christmas was one of the most stressful events of the year.

Stress is a subjective experience... and because everyone experiences stress differently there is limited use to creating a scale to measure stress objectively. It won't apply to everyone equally. It certainly doesn't to myself.

Section 5-3: Inverted :-( hypothesis.

-Courtesy of tumblr.com #smileyfry-

In psychology there is a theory which suggests there are optimal levels of emotional arousal when performing tasks of a varying complexity. This theory is known as the "inverted U hypothesis" and according to the suggested model, the less complex a task is the higher level of emotional arousal required to perform optimally at the task at hand and vice-versa. I believe this model functions as a good predictor of performance generally, but due to its objective nature misses out again on the subjective nature of psychology. I agree that a high level of emotion while doing a monotonous task such as driving across the country to assist a loved one can help with the completion of that task, and that being overly distressed and emotional while writing an exam will hinder performance... this is based on negative emotions. If you tie in the fact that most people with "Duchenne" smiles tend to live longer lives and are overall healthier... perhaps it is worthwhile to feel pleased during tasks of great complexity. I would like to propose the "Turn that frown upside down" model... or to play on the existing model. "the inverted :-( hypothesis"

-Courtesy of tumblr.com #smileyfry-

I take this example from my own life. Anyone who has read through a master copy of my test booklets that I have marked up or written notes in can see that I carry quite a lot of personal energy in these situations. I use humorous writing, self-talk, and even laugh at myself in these situations  to keep myself focused on the task at hand. If I can study a task to the point of complete comprehension I find that it helps to keep an environment of levity about the situation (currently my progress in post-secondary studies reflects this well.)

Psychology is subjective, and until we invent some sort of measuring system that can account for this, any models which use graphs and charts as the basis for their theory will ultimately be flawed in some way.


Note to the Professor
If you are to pair up this section with a particular part of the written Journal you will find that I continue to discuss stress for another five pages (p.37-42) and I take the concepts of Seyles General adaptation syndrome, maladaptive coping methods, treatment seeking and rational thinking, and I apply these to personal experiences. for this section I feel as though the topics are too sensitive to be put on display publicly. So feel free to read through them yourself for the purpose of additional information, but I will not be placing these topics on the electronic edition of the website.