#have you heard of normative ethics? morality regarding how we should act?

[demo-ness]

saw a post that was like "people who say they're an adult with a job are actually default proship" or something along those lines.

and as someone who has one foot in and one foot out of fandom, i NEED you all to understand: from an outside perspective, THERE IS NO DEBATE HAPPENING HERE. you are two groups circlejerking and occasionally sneering at each other, and you could ostensibly be "debating" about anything, for as much actually seems to be discussed.

nobody is defaulting to having their dick out with either stance. when we notice you we avert our gaze and try to walk faster. do not try to force us to associate with either of you, please

[liasfinalportfolio]

How has the Study of Psychology Changed our Dominican Society?

Lia Nuñez

Catherine Domareki

Composition: The Act of Understanding

28 November 2019

How has the Study of Psychology Changed our Dominican Society?

Our world wouldn’t be the one we know without psychology. The psyche has been an enigma since the beginning of time and even though psychology only became a scientific study in 1879, humans have been trying to understand the workings of the human mind for centuries. However, attempting to decode the way people think, and why they act the way they do hasn’t been an easy task. Even to this day, we still don’t understand all there is to know about the human brain and psyche.  

In this essay, I will explore the changes psychology and psychotherapy have had in the 

The Dominican Republic. From the public’s opinion of it to the change in the practice itself. 

As a relatively new science, there still are some people who think psychotherapy isn’t needed. People who believe studying psychology is a waste of time since all you need is common sense. However, that is not the majority, just as the study of psychology itself has changed in various ways throughout the years, the way people look at seeing a psychologist or needing therapy has changed too. The stigma is less strong nowadays, and so is the shame.

In the past, psychologists have conducted controversial and even inhumane experiments to test their theories, both with humans and with animals.

A good example of an unethical and merciless study would be what the American psychologist, Harry Harlow, called the pit of despair. 

For that experiment, Harlow wanted to test how depression worked in monkeys. He let the monkeys bond with their mothers, before putting them in what he referred to as the ‘pit of despair’; it was a pyramid-like cage where he isolated the monkeys up to twenty-four months. The result was severely psychologically disturbed monkeys. As the American literary critic Wayne C. Booth wrote: "Harry Harlow and his colleagues go on torturing their nonhuman primates decade after decade, invariably proving what we all knew in advance—that social creatures can be destroyed by destroying their social ties." 

An example of an unethical psychological experiment would be the Stanford Prison Experiment (1971). In it, Dr Philip Zimbardo of Stanford University took some willing participants to do some form of roleplaying, in which half acted as prison guards and half acted as prisoners. The purpose of this experiment was, as their website says, ‘to understand the development of norms and the effects of roles, labels, and social expectations in a simulated  prison environment.’ [1]

After only a few days, the volunteers didn’t feel like they were participating in an experiment, but rather like they were in an actual prison. Prisoners reinforced that belief by telling each other that quitting was impossible, that this was a real-life prison. The prisoners felt like they didn’t have authority or options, and many had to be retired early because of mental stress.  One-third of the guards became hostile and strict, they seemed to enjoy the prisoner’s humiliation and the authority they were given.

The experiment was supposed to last two weeks, however, it ended up being terminated after only six days, after witnessing extreme guard brutality and being questioned about the morality of the experiment by Christina Maslach, a recent Stanford PhD. 

Those two are only some examples of the various immoral experiments that have been conducted. The team behind the Stanford Prison Experiment didn’t have bad intentions, and lots of old experiments were like that too, however, they were still less than ideal, and while we learned valuable things from them, they should never be repeated.  

Nowadays there are rules and regulations in place so that kind of thing won’t happen again. Just like child labour laws, in the Dominican Republic, we have an ethics code, which is confirmed by the executive power, and every psychologist is bound to it.

Another thing that has changed is the fact that psychologists and doctors now treat patients who aren’t suffering extreme conditions. No longer is seeing a psychologist something only people who are a harm to society or themselves do. If you want a better relationship with your marriage partner, if you want to love yourself, if you want to be a great parent, all of these are valid reasons to go see a psychologist. As therapist Ryan Howes said, ‘In fact, therapy is just as useful in the wellness model of getting healthy, achieving potential, and making a good life better.’ 1

In the times we live in, more and more people have been seeing therapists, and little by little we’ve been breaking the stigma that surrounds psychotherapy. While we still have a long way to go, soon we’ll get to the point where people aren’t ashamed to ask for help, just like they aren’t ashamed (usually) to go to the doctor or to the gym.  Like Howes said; ‘For comparison, look at two ways you manage your physical health: a visit to your M.D. versus working out at the gym. You go to a physician to treat a medical problem: You feel symptoms and seek treatment to return to your “normal” state. By contrast, you go to the gym to get healthy, achieve a higher physical potential, and generally make a good life better. Two different approaches to health, one focused on illness and the other wellness. Therapy is unique in that it acts as the psychological equivalent of both the M.D. and the gym. We go to therapy to treat problems as well as improve an already decent life.’

In the past, psychology wasn’t covered by insurance, since back then insurance companies did not see psychological issues as medical problems in the Dominican Republic. Nowadays however, insurance companies like Humano can cover therapy visits, just like with other health issues.

Nowadays psychology isn’t just being used for extreme cases only. Since it has become more mainstream, kids with learning disabilities, people with self-confidence issues, all of them are getting the help they need. While in the past people didn’t dare talk about having a therapist/psychologist, now, in the Dominican Republic, it’s become almost a trend. Some years ago, the ‘phone psychologist’ movement (in which you could call a number for psychological advice) started happening. It only lasted a few years, however, it too influenced on how people look at psychotherapy. Nowadays, even people without mental issues just go there to rant, to feel heard. 

Psychology has evolved in many ways throughout the years, and with it, the people’s opinion. The change, however, has been largely positive and I’m sure a world without stigma, at least in regards to psychotherapy, is just around the corner.

Works Cited

Howes, Ryan. “8 More Reasons to Go to Therapy.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 10 Mar. 2014, www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-therapy/201403/8-more-reasons-go-therapy.

Stamp, Clifton. “What Are The Top 10 Unethical Psychology Experiments?” Online Psychology Degrees, 12 Sept. 2019, www.online-psychology-degrees.org/study/top-unethical-experiments-psychology/.

[omfgtrump]

Democrats Need to Stand Up!

Let’s face it: The Democrats lack guts and imagination.

While they are on stage babbling about healthcare, The Don and his cronies continue to break norms, laws, and commit heinous acts. (I am a supporter of Medicare for All but know that congress has to pass that bill, and at this point, this will never happen.)

Let’s start with the emoluments clauses. It comes in two delicious flavors; domestic and foreign.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution prevents the president and other federal officers from accepting “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State,” without Congress’ consent.

The Domestic Emoluments Clause, clause authorizes a fixed presidential salary that cannot be augmented by Congress during the term, and specifically states that the president not “receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.”

It is not an exaggeration to say that The Don’s entire presidency has functioned as a kleptocracy. He lied to us about divesting himself from his businesses while president, and has been in violation of the emoluments from his first day in office.

Let’s start with foreign affairs. But before we do, I need to bring up a comment that the Princess of Darkness, Ivanka, recently made during an interview with Entertainment Tonight in Jackson Hole Wyoming. According to two people in attendance, The Don passed on his moral compass to her.

Now if you were Kate Mckinnon on SNL playing Ivanka saying: “Oh, my daddy, he just has the greatest and biggest ethical and moral compass in the world. He just swings that big beautiful, gold thing and the world sways in his direction,” the audience would probably crack up.

And just to make sure there was no confusion, Ivanka made similar comments at the Republican National Convention in 2016, Politico noted. “My father taught my siblings and me the importance of positive values and a strong ethical compass,” she said then.

Let’s return to the man with moral compass. Let’s take his Washington Hotel. Is that a domestic or foreign violation?

The Don has made millions of dollars from friendly travelers from the following governments: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, and Georgia (the country.) When The Don learned that diplomats from Georgia were staying he supposedly remarked: “There are two places named Georgia? Wow, that is really something!”

Diplomats of these governments have paid premium dollars to stay there courting favor with the administration.

And there is the state of Maine whose Governor Le Page and his entourage spent $22,000 on a stay at The Don’s hotel.

Here’ what Le Page, who is in a bit of lobster pot hot water regarding his use of taxpayer money for his sojourn had to say:

“I didn’t realize that a night in his hotel and he’s in my back pocket.”

Rumor has it that Le Page’s rational for the trip was to scope out a new place to hold Maine’s annual Lobster Festival, traditionally held in Rockland, Maine. When queried about this, he was rumored to have said: If the president can have the G7 summit at his Doral property, what’s wrong with Lobsterfest in D.C? Got to say Le Page does have a point here.

Yes it is true that The Don is looking to have the G7 stay at his Doral property in Miami. No credit cards. Just dollars!

Russia stays for free.

What about the infamous Turnberry Affair: U.S. military planes fueling up at a tiny airport only 30 miles from The Don’s failing Scotland golf course? Heard the military people got discounts to play golf. Rumor has it that one of men looked around and said: “Who the fuck plays golf?” Another serviceman went to the bar while the plane was filling up on fuel and ordered a beer. “I’ve got this voucher here with the president on it.” The bartender looked down and said: “Sorry sir, that just gets you a glass of water, and that doesn’t cover using the restrooms.”

Turns out that the Saudis are personally bankrolling Turnberry. It was just reported that 25 Saudis, with 100 suitcases, stayed for a week. The Saudis just love, love, love golf!

Then there is Mike Pence stay in Ireland at The Don’s property there. Not so weird. Wouldn’t you stay 180 miles away from the conference you were attending?

And William Barr, The Don’s personal attorney, is going to have his holiday party at Mar-a-Lago.

And who knows the amount of money The Don and the prince of darkness, Jared, have made in their dealings with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia?

What did Ivanka say? She got her moral compass from her daddy?

Hey Ivanka, does that include deregulation of pesticides that are known to cause brain damage in children?

How about keeping people at the border in cages like animals?

And now for something straight out of the devil’s playbook.

Sending children home to die! That’s right, the great moral compass has sanctioned that children who are here illegally, receiving life saving medical treatment, will have to leave the country.

From my vantage point that makes The Don an accomplice in murder! Actually, let’s dispense with the niceties of accomplice and call the devil what he is: a murderer!

Which brings me back to the last democratic debate and their lack of guts and imagination.

So what should the democrats running for president have done during the most recent debate?

They should have thrown out all the pomp and circumstance and gone rogue. They should have pulled a Howard Beale Network moment and taken over the airwaves and done some guerilla theater. It is time to take the narrative from this cruel-hearted, malignant narcissist and take it to him.

In my fantasy, the Democrats would stand by their podiums and when the first question about healthcare was asked they would have said: “We are pulling ‘a Trump and all negotiated rules are off.”

Each one would place a mask of The Don on their face and together say:

“Hi, I am Donald Trump. This is how I am making America great again:

Then one by one they would say:

I, Donald Trump, am taking life saving treatment away from children and sending them home to die. I, Donald Trump, am a murderer

I, Donald Trump, separate babies from their families creating life long PTSD for these children.

I, Donald Trump, find that putting people in cages is the American way.

I, Donald Trump, am causing brain damage in children by allowing poisonous pesticides to be reintroduced.

I, Donald Trump, am a racist.

I, Donald Trump, am a misogynist.

I, Donald Trump,  am a sexual predator.

I, Donald Trump, laugh at all of you as I enrich myself on the presidency.

I, Donald Trump, will work with Russians or any other foreign government to win reelection.

I, Donald Trump, am a criminal. See if you can catch me!

I, Ivanka Trump, have been bequeathed my father’s moral compass!

What do think would happen if the Democrats did that? I’m not sure, but I sure would like to find out. All I know is that as long as we let this sociopath control the narrative we are in deep trouble. It’s time he responded to us!

from WordPress https://ift.tt/307PKwP via IFTTT

[suzannemcappsca]

Who are we helping? The mediator as co-creator.

Charlie Irvine

Have you ever wondered who mediators are helping? The parties, obviously! Well, not so obvious to our critics. In this blog I consider worries about mediation’s approach to manifest injustice before making the case for understanding the mediator as co-creator, with the parties, of outcomes. I argue that co-creation enhances the prospects for justice.

Stories

Academic critics often express their concerns about mediation via stories. We know how stories go: powerless and friendless victim comes up against confident and remorseless villain. Victim is crushed. Hero appears. Hero takes up victim’s cause, ensures victory and humiliates the villain. And so with tales of mediation. The so-called ‘weaker’ party (female, poor, from an ethnic minority) comes up against a powerful company (with wealthy, white, male lawyers). The mediator appears. If she fails to act heroically, championing the cause of the weak, the critics accuse her of injustice. If the mediator steps in to even the scales, she’s accused of partiality.

I’m tiring of these two-dimensional representations. For one thing they patronise women, minorities and the poor. By assuming these groups need special assistance this stereotype underestimates people’s capacity to take advantage of mediation’s qualities: the valuing of everyday speech, the patience to hear the whole story, the tolerance of emotion.1)In tribute to Ken Kressel’s remark that ‘all mediation is local’ I acknowledge that these qualities are not present in every mediation. It is often the apparently powerful party, perhaps a middle manager or representative, who expresses discomfort at confrontation. For a nice debunking of the myth of the powerless female see Andrea Schneider’s excellent Ted talk ‘Women don’t Negotiate and Other Similar Nonsense‘

Furthermore, these rhetorical tales simplify complexity. In real life mediation, “everybody’s story makes sense to them.” That doesn’t make them right, but they almost certainly believe they have good reasons for their actions. Why would managers, directors or lawyers want to take part in a process that ignores or slaps down their thinking? Their stories need to be heard too, not only for fairness but to let the other party glimpse the logic driving the dispute.

In fact mediators often face the opposite problem: over-optimism. The ‘weaker’ party’s lack of knowledge about legal norms can lead them to believe they are entitled to much more than courts or tribunals will award. How then should a mediator behave? If they uncritically champion this position they do that party a disservice, missing potential settlements and pissing off the other side. Even so-called neutrality has the same effect. A voice inside my head says: “If I go home knowing that this party will never get anywhere near the £X,000 they seek, and keep that knowledge to myself, whose interests am I serving?” So, ironically, a mediator may work to reduce the aspirations of the less powerful party in that person’s interests.

Real-life research

To return to my question, who then are we helping? If we don’t extend equal support and regard to both parties, why would they trust us? This goes to the heart of mediator ethics. In whose interests do we act? The parties? The justice system? The State? Our own?

Recent Australian research sheds some light on mediators’ answers to these questions 2)Noone MA and Ojelabi LA, ‘Ethical Challenges for Mediators around the Globe: An Australian Perspective’ (2014) 45 Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 145. Inspired by Ellen Waldman’s excellent volume on Mediation Ethics 3)Waldman EA, Mediation Ethics: Cases and Commentaries. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2011 the researchers presented employment mediators with a scenario seemingly designed to tempt them into heroic intervention.4)A sexual harassment claim by a 23 year old female against her boss where the company arrives mob-handed (boss, HR, two directors and two lawyers) while the claimant has one not-terribly-impressive attorney. Then they posed some tricky questions about how the mediators might act. Their conclusions won’t come as a huge surprise to practitioners. Mediators were keen on informed decision-making and procedural fairness but more cautious about substantive justice. Most saw that as the parties’ own business. I was relieved to read that, despite a shared enthusiasm for self-determination, ‘mediators have individual moral compasses’.5)Ojelabi and Noone 2014, p. 147 The impression was of experienced and thoughtful practitioners wrestling with questions to which there is no simple answer.

Models: Facilitative, Evaluative and Mediator as Co-creator

Conventional models of mediation don’t quite capture what’s going on. The classic ‘facilitative’ presentation of the process has the mediator as a kind of well-intentioned conduit for parties’ messages:

What is the mediator actually providing here? A setting? A process? A witness? A message bearer? The notion that the outcome comes entirely from the parties is almost sacerdotal in the facilitative mediation canon. And because the result is attributed to ‘lay’ people, the justice it produces is seen as subjective.

Evaluative mediators have no such squeamishness about their influence, claiming to enhance informed decision-making by providing expert predictions about the courts’ likely behaviour:

Here the mediator provides normative guidance of a specific kind.6)corresponding to Riskin’s “evaluative/narrow” style: Riskin LL, ‘Understanding Mediators’ Orientations, Strategies, and Techniques: A Grid for the Perplexed’ (1996) 1 Harvard Negotiation Law Review 7 She may act as reality tester, confidante, message bearer and influencer, but most would still see the parties (or their lawyers) as decision-makers. As most evaluative mediators appear to be legally qualified the justice produced is seen as objective.

If we were starting from scratch we might approach things differently. My own experience and studies by too many scholars to name in a blog7)For a small selection see Wall J a and Dunne TC, ‘State of the Art Mediation Research : A Current Review’ (2012) Negotiation Journal 217; Greatbatch D and Dingwall R, ‘Selective Facilitation: Some Preliminary Observations on a Strategy Used by Divorce Mediators’ (1989) 23 Law and Society Review 613; Jacobs S and Aakhus M, ‘What Mediators Do with Words Implementing Three Models of Rational Discussion in Dispute Mediation.’ (2002) 20 Conflict Resolution Quarterly 177; Wall JA and Kressel K, ‘Mediator Thinking in Civil Cases’ (2017) 34 Conflict Resolution Quarterly 331; Coleman PT and others, ‘Putting the Peaces Together: A Situated Model of Mediation’ (2015) 26 International Journal of Conflict Management 145 have convinced me that mediators (mostly) co-create outcomes. This doesn’t mean supplanting the parties, as in James Alfini’s nightmare vision.8)Alfini JJ, ‘Trashing, Bashing, and Hashing It out: Is This the End Of “Good Mediation”?’ (1991) 19 Florida State University Law Review 47 Rather it means acknowledging the complexity of mediation as a system. If we are there, we have an influence.9)Wheatley, MJ, Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler, 2006

I’m not suggesting that party self-determination plays no part. I’ve always found it a merciful discipline that parties have the ultimate veto in my work. It ain’t over till they say it is. But most of our clients, most of the time, welcome a well-intentioned other who has the patience and persistence to probe, test, suggest, craft and hone until something appears. Far from being apologetic about our impact I’m coming to believe we should celebrate it. The doctrine of neutrality, borrowed from judges, needs to be returned to the courts. Not only does it confuse parties (do you care about us or not?) but it confuses mediators. Again and again I hear new mediators describe some party misperception as a block to resolution. When asked if they said what they were thinking they answer “But I didn’t think we were allowed to say that.”

A more plausible model of practice would look like this:

The mediator as co-creator does the same things as in the classic models – questions, summarises, reality-tests, gets alongside the parties and sees things from their perspective – but acknowledges his influence. Things said and not said all impact the result. Mediator and parties keep negotiating not only about the outcome but about the criteria by which it is to be evaluated.

Let me be clear: co-creation is not evaluation. The mediator’s input is held lightly, open to negotiation, rejection and modification. What we are really doing is assisting people to forge their own vision of justice. No-one suggests law and justice are identical. Most people know what is just; why shouldn’t they know what justice is? If we respect people enough to give them a say in the justice of their own cause we may find that we gain more than we lose.

References   [ + ]

1. ↑ In tribute to Ken Kressel’s remark that ‘all mediation is local’ I acknowledge that these qualities are not present in every mediation. 2. ↑ Noone MA and Ojelabi LA, ‘Ethical Challenges for Mediators around the Globe: An Australian Perspective’ (2014) 45 Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 145 3. ↑ Waldman EA, Mediation Ethics: Cases and Commentaries. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2011 4. ↑ A sexual harassment claim by a 23 year old female against her boss where the company arrives mob-handed (boss, HR, two directors and two lawyers) while the claimant has one not-terribly-impressive attorney. 5. ↑ Ojelabi and Noone 2014, p. 147 6. ↑ corresponding to Riskin’s “evaluative/narrow” style: Riskin LL, ‘Understanding Mediators’ Orientations, Strategies, and Techniques: A Grid for the Perplexed’ (1996) 1 Harvard Negotiation Law Review 7 7. ↑ For a small selection see Wall J a and Dunne TC, ‘State of the Art Mediation Research : A Current Review’ (2012) Negotiation Journal 217; Greatbatch D and Dingwall R, ‘Selective Facilitation: Some Preliminary Observations on a Strategy Used by Divorce Mediators’ (1989) 23 Law and Society Review 613; Jacobs S and Aakhus M, ‘What Mediators Do with Words Implementing Three Models of Rational Discussion in Dispute Mediation.’ (2002) 20 Conflict Resolution Quarterly 177; Wall JA and Kressel K, ‘Mediator Thinking in Civil Cases’ (2017) 34 Conflict Resolution Quarterly 331; Coleman PT and others, ‘Putting the Peaces Together: A Situated Model of Mediation’ (2015) 26 International Journal of Conflict Management 145 8. ↑ Alfini JJ, ‘Trashing, Bashing, and Hashing It out: Is This the End Of “Good Mediation”?’ (1991) 19 Florida State University Law Review 47 9. ↑ Wheatley, MJ, Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler, 2006

More from our authors:

Negotiation: Things Corporate Counsel Need To Know But Were Not Taught by Michael Leathes € 52

The post Who are we helping? The mediator as co-creator. appeared first on Kluwer Mediation Blog.

from Updates By Suzanne http://kluwermediationblog.com/2017/05/21/mediator-as-co-creator/