Postcards from the Id

HBO's Rome - Totally Digging It!

I have a book review pending for Rubicon, a book about the last days of the Roman Republic (hint: I loved it!).  Unfortunately, it is written on a computer that is now without a screen, and that is now being mailed back to me by Dell (unrepaired, I might add).  Once returned, I'll do my best to pull my writings off of its hard drive, and will hopefully be able to post my review.

Rubicon was written by Tom Holland, who also wrote Persian Fire, about Leonidas, Xerxes, and the war being the Greeks and the Persian Empire.  Note - I loved that book, too.  As a result, I read Rubicon, and will read Tom Holland's other stuff when able.

Based on my enjoyment of Rubicon, I recently began receiving HBO's series Rome in the mail.  Disc 1 sat on my computer stand for two weeks, but I finally popped it into the player this weekend.  All I can say is, "Wow!"

I'm not going to go into any kind of review; this has been around awhile (2005?), and I'm sure there are tons of quality reviews all over the Internet.  Suffice to say that if you enjoy history presented well, with a focus on both the major players, as well as the day-to-day lives of the typical citizens, this series is for you.  Well written, well acted, beautifully filmed, and with a story of remarkable importance and timelessness, I am four episodes in, and can't wait to watch more.  I recommend the double dip - read Rubicon, which is very well written and will provide you with a sense of the time, players, and issues.  Then, start watching Rome, and be sure to use the special feature "All Roads Lead to Rome,"  which provides bits of information and trivia on-screen as the episode plays.  Two seasons were filmed, with 22 episodes total.  I find this appealing, in that an end is in sight right off the bat, and the last episode appears to be at an appropriate juncture in Roman history.  Enjoy!  I know I will...

Self-Esteem - Book Quote - An Arsenal of Shoulds

From Self-Esteem, page 17:

"The critic has many weapons.  Among the most effective are the values and rules of living you grew up with.  the critic has a way of turning your"shoulds" against you.  He compares the way you are with the way you ought to be and judges you inadequate or wrong.  he calls you stupid if the A you should have had slips to a B.  He says, "A real man supports his family," and calls you a loser when you're laid off from work.  He says, "The kids come first," and calls you selfish when you crave some nights off."

In addressing many neurotic mental health issues, you'll come across the concept of rigid thinking, and how it contributes to depression, anxiety, etc.  The paragraph above demonstrates how this type of thinking leads to misinterpretations of environmental activities, which then leads to negative/maladaptive feelings, which in turn lead to less optimal behavioral responses.  Albert Ellis is generally credited with the modern therapeutic framework for addressing rigid thinking patterns and their unhealthy impact on our well-being (Rational-Emotive-Behavior Therapy, or REBT). 

When tackling low self-esteem, adressing rigid thinking patterns (as voiced by this "inner critic") is of paramount importance.  The book goes into some detail as to why, as well as how to confront these cognitive errors.  For now, let us just say that, in general, excessively rigid thinking is, first and foremost, wrong.  Period.  To consistently judge oneself against erroneous standards, then, puts us at a disadvantage.  This is why confronting the inner critic, and correcting the rigid beliefs inherent in the inner critics' statements, is so important.  Next up, I'll provide further quotes from the book, and provide a few examples.

Self-Esteem - Book Quote - The Pathological Critic

“The pathological critic is a term coined by psychologist Eugene Sagan to describe the negative inner voice that attacks you.  Everyone has a critical inner voice.  But people with low self-esteem tend to have a more vicious and vocal pathological voice.

The critic blames you for things that go wrong.  The critic compares you to others - to their achievements and abilities - and finds you wanting.  The critic sets impossible standards of perfection and then beats you up for the smallest mistake.  The critic keeps an album of your failures, but never once reminds you of your strengths or accomplishments.  The critic has a script describing how you ought to live and screams that you are wrong and bad if your needs drive you to violate its rules.  The critic tells you to best the best - and if you’re not the best, you’re nothing.  He calls you names - stupid, incompetent, ugly, selfish, weal - and makes you believe that all of them are true.  The critic reads your friends’ minds and convinces you that they are bored, turned off, disappointed, or disgusted by you.  The critic exaggerates your weaknesses by insisting that you “always say stupid things,” or “always screw up a relationship,” or “never finish anything on time.”

- From Self-Esteem, page 15

In short, the more you grapple with an internal voice like this, the more likely it is you sense of self-worth is being compromised by this cognitive style.  The good news is, the inner critic is much like the loud, obnoxious drunk at a party; everyone listens to what he says because he is loud and obnoxious, but with a bit of confrontation and some logic, everything he says can be disproved.

Raising The Issue of Competency To Stand Trial

I’ve discussed this issue before, but since so much of my work involves assessing defendant’s competency to stand trial, I read a lot about various aspects of this issue.  I find it helpful to review even the basics, as having additional work experience often provides an opportunity to consider something I have already learned in a new light.

In this case, I’ve been reading parts of a new book on Competency Evaluations, Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial, by Patricia Zapf and Ronald Roesch.  A well-written, detailed book, I’ve read a few sections to either refresh my memory on certain issues, or look for additional information.  In this case, I came across a brief section of book pertaining to raising the issue of the competency of a defendant.

This is pretty well-established law, according to everything I’ve read on the subject: the issue of competency must be raised by any officer of Court (that is, the judge, prosecution, or defense) if there is a bona fide doubt as to the defendant’s competence.  According to Zapf and Roesch, this standard was established by the Supreme Court in 1966, during the case of Pate vs. Robinson.  I’ve also heard of cases where the initiation of the question regarding competency has originated from pre-trial services staff (such as a pre-trial officer gathering background information), and in one case I heard about, it was a Spanish interpreter who informed the judge that the defendant was speaking Spanish, but wasn’t making any sense.

  The book notes (as have other books, and also what I’ve personally observed) that the threshold for establishing a bona fide doubt is low: virtually all courts will order an evaluation if the issue is raised.  The legal system wants a fair, accurate trial for the defendant, and judges do not want cases turned over on appeal.  According to Zapf and Roesch, the case Drope vs. Missouri (1975) noted three issues related to a defendant’s competency; if even one of these observations are made, it may be sufficient to warrant an evaluation:

1) a defendant’s irrational behavior

2) a defendant’s demeanor at trial

3) any prior medical opinion on competence to stand trial

In addition, it should be noted that these issues may warrant an evaluation at any point during the legal process.  That is, a defendant may be competent at the start of a trial; should his presentation or functioning change during the course of the trial, the necessity of an evaluation remains. 

Personally, I’ve observed that there is, in general, a fairly low threshold for referring a defendant for a competency evaluation, at least within the federal system.  I’ve had individuals sent for a evaluation who have no mental health or legal history, but presented as tearful during an appearance in court, and acknowledged they were depressed.  I’m not offering judgment either way in this respect; it is a judge’s decision whether an individual warrants an evaluation.  I also understand (and appreciate) that legal professionals generally acknowledge that the mental health knowledge involved with respect to issues related to competency, responsibility, etc. are beyond their training.  Requesting for an evaluation is often simply an acknowledgment that there is an issue present; while it may not be severe, non-mental health clinicians are not always aware of this.  As a simple example, some diagnoses sound pretty significant, even though they are not necessarily all that severe, or relevant to the issue of competency.   Of course, we still doa full evaluation of an individual’s competency to stand trial, but when a defendant is relatively healthy mental health-wise, there is generally less to assess than with a defendant who presents with multiple issues and a lengthy treatment history.

The only other observation I’ll note at this time is that I’ve come across a few questions from time to time about the high number of people found competent to stand trial, when compared to individual’s found incompetent.  The data suggests that approximately 70-80% of defendant’s evaluated for competency are, in fact, found competent.  Only 20-30% are found incompetent.  This is primarily due to two factors: 1) the threshold for referring an individual for an evaluation is low; and 2) The threshold for being competent is low.  That is, lots of people meet the criteria to warrant an evaluation.  Conversely, not much is legally required to be found competent.  Most individuals are found competent because they are competent, even when they have some sort of mental health issue.  It takes a fair degree of impairment to be found incompetent.  I’ve gone into all of this before, so help yourself to previous postings on this subject!

Over At Marginal Revolutions...

Tyler Cowen has a new book out, Create Your Own Ecomony, and he is making a special offer if you buy his book today.  I enjoyed his book Discover Your Inner Economist, which I blogged about here.  My hunch is that I'll enjoy this book as well.

In addition, Cowen has an interesting post regarding John Calvin's underrated reputation as a thinker, and he gingerly steps into the debate regarding high speed rails (in this case, building them in Texas).

Impact of Tech on Custer’s last Stand

Over at Wired, a nice blog review of the impact technology might have played in Custer’s fall at Little Big Horn.  My only real knowledge of this event is from reading Ambrose’s Crazy Horse and Custer (which I enjoyed), so I like coming across posts like this.  Seems like the numeric advantage was overwhelming, so the rifle differences probably only hastened the eventual outcome.  On the other hand, if Custer had brought Gatlin guns, who knows?  Interesting stuff, worth a read.

Over at Omnivoracious...

A few links to posts on their site: 

1) First, here is someone as excited about Terry Teachout’s next book as me.

2) A review of The Human Disguise, and a short interview with the author.  I now want to read this book, a lot!

3) A tribute to the awesomeness that is Tolkien...

Pirates, Pirates Everywhere!!!

Blundering Barnacles!!!!  Thar be pirates everywhere!!!  Okay, not really.  But, given the Somali pirate stuff in the news the last few months, pop culture has incorporated those events in a number of places.  Here are two of my faves:

1)  South Park - Episode 13 this year is "Fatbeard," where Cartman travels to Somalia to live out his dream of pirating.  Of course, upon arrival, he and the crew observe Somalia is not a land of blue lagoons and overstuffed treasure chests.  The episode is hysterical, and as usual, the South Park guys skewer a whole bunch of targets while delivering laughs along the way.   Here's the musical clip of Cartman teaching the Somali pirates to shape up...

2) Joe Devito, "Famous Comedian," ought to be better known. Here is a bit of his stand up from not too long ago:

3) One of my favorite magazines, Mental Floss, has an article this month: "Ten Things You Didn't KNow About Somali Pirates."  It's subscription only, so I'll give you just a taste:

"#2 - Nobody Brings Home the Bacon Like a Pirate - According to some estimates, pirates in 2008 pulled in as much as $150 million, indicating that piracy is now Somalia's biggest industry.  In fact, successful pirates are the country's most eligible bachelors.  While small-time swashbucklers earn in the low five figures, bosses can pull in $2 million a year-this, in a country where you can buy dinner for less than $1.  But, as their wallets fatten, many pirates are heading for greener pastures, and the real money is flowing out of the country with them.  Many are buying properties on the seashore of Mombasa, Kenya where new condos are being built every day.  If a condo is selling for a few million dollars, there's a good chance the bosses will throw in an extra half-million, just to make sure the Kenyans don't ask too many questions."

4) It seems like when most people think of pirates, they think 1600s to 1800s.  However, piracy goes back waaaay before that.  I recently finished reading Rubicon by Tom Holland, a fantastic book chronicling the end of the Roman Republic, and Caesar's rise in power.  One section I found particularly interesting, in these heady pirate times, was that the early Roman Empire had its problems with pirates; in fact, many of the difficulties in dealing with the Somali pirates today (hard to find, many officials looking the other way) were major reasons for Rome's difficulties in combating pirating.  From the book:

Whatever the rewards it was capable of brining them, however, kidnapping was only a sideline for the pirates.  Calculated acts of intimidation ensured that they could extort and rob almost at will, inland as well as at sea.  The scale of their plundering was matched by their pretensions.  Their chiefs "claimed for themselves the status of kings and tyrants, and for their men, that of soldiers, believing that if they pooled their resources, they would be invincible."  In the nakedness of their greed, and in their desire to make the whole world their prey, there was more than a parody of the Republic itself, a ghostly image that the Romans found unsettling in the extreme.  The shadowiness of the pirates' organization, and their diffuse operations, made them a foe unlike any other.  "The pirate is not bound by the rules of war, but is the common enemy of everyone," Cicero complained.  "There can be no trusting him, no attempt to bind him with mutually agreed treaties." 

Other issues related to the pirates (such as their being a main supplier of slaves, which created an interesting paradox to Cicero's concerns) are discussed in some detail, and the book in general is full of information presented with a very readable style.  I'll review it more thoroughly in my next book review post, but suffice to say I recommend the book whole-heartedly.

So, I hope all this will slate your pirate thirst for awhile!

The Concept of Attention - Selected Quotes and Observations

Here are some quotes and observations regarding the concept of attention, on of many cognitive functions often assessed by clinicians, in a wide variety of contexts.  It seems like a simple thing to understand, but there's much more to attention than meets the eye.  All of the quotes below are from the book Neuropsychological Assessment, by Muriel Lezak.

“Attention refers to several different capacities or processes that are related aspects of how the organism becomes receptive to stimuli and how it may begin processing incoming or attended-to excitation.”

Attention has been placed in several different functional sub-categories, depending on how it is conceptualized.  Features of attention that have been observed or discussed have included reflexive versus voluntary attention, stimulus-driven versus memory-driven, and the varying amounts of attention that can be focused on different stimuli.

“A salient characteristic of the attentional system is its limited capacity.  Only so much processing activity can take place at a time, such that engagement of the system in processing one attentional task calling on controlled attention can interfere with a second task having similar processing requirements.”

“Attentional capacity varies not only between individuals but also within each person at different times and under different conditions.”

As an example, an individual who is fatigued, weak from malnourishment, etc. will demonstrate less attentional capacity than they would under improved conditions.

“Simple immediate span of attention - how much information can be grasped at once - is a relatively effortless process that tends to be resistant to the effects of aging and of many brain disorders.”

This is akin to working memory - how much information an individual can hold at one time, in the moment (for example, when someone is attempting to remember a telephone number they just heard).

“Four other aspects of attention are more fragile and thus often of greater clinical interest.”

“(1) Focused or selective attention - is probably the most studied aspect and the one people usually have in mind when talking about attention.  It is the capacity to highlight the one or two most important stimuli or ideas being dealt with while suppressing awareness of competing distractions.  It is commonly referred to as concentration.”  

“(2) Sustained attention or vigilance - refers to the capacity to ward off distractions to selective attention.”

“(3) Divided attention - involves the ability to respond to more than one task at a time or to multiple elements or operations within a task, as in a complex mental task.  It is thus very sensitive to any condition that reduces attentional capacity.”

“(4) Alternating attention - allows for shifts in focus and tasks.”

“Impaired attention and concentration are among the most common mental problems associated with brain damage.  When attentional deficits occur, all the cognitive functions may be intact and the person may even be capable of some high level performances, yet overall cognitive productivity suffers from inattentiveness, faulty concentration, and consequent fatigue.”

The issue that generally comes to mind first when discussing attentional deficits is Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).  However, as noted above, an individual’s attentional capacity will suffer due to a wide variety of impairments, including head injuries, medical issues, and other trauma that impacts the brain.  Attention is generally screened as part of any sort of mental status examination (an assessment of an individual’s current cognitive state).  However, if an issue with attention is observed, more detailed assessment can be conducted.  As these quotes demonstrate, attention is a much more complex concept than many realize, and it requires a thorough assessment if there is concern it is impacting an individual’s overall cognitive functioning.

Book Quote - Everything Bad is Good For You, by Steven Johnson

While I haven't been posting much of late, I have been reading a great deal.  In fact, I am hoping to write an extended post this weekend about several of the books I've bought and/or read in the last two months.  I've been on a pretty good run, in that I've really enjoyed the last three books, including Everything Bad Is Good For You, by Steven Johnson.  I'll summarize the book more thoroughly in my review, but suffice to say that, even though I don't agree with all of his arguments, I tend to agree with the general theme of the book - rather than popular culture becoming an intellectual anchor dragging each successive generation further into neanderthalism, pop culture has actually becoming significantly more challenging in a wide variety of mediums and methods, leading to an increase in intellectual ability.  Johnson takes great pains to separate the content of the cultural device (such as in video games like Grand Theft Auto), and instead focuses on how participating in these devices requires significantly more and/or different intellectual skills than did the common cultural fare available to the masses in previous decades (what Johnson refers to as "The Sleeper Curve").  TV, movies, video games, etc. - they're all discussed in an interesting yet quick read.  As I said, I tend to agree with this reasoning, especially when it comes to television: shows today require significantly more intellecutal muscle to follow and "get" than the shows of yesteryear, be they comedies or dramas.  Here is a passage from Johnson's book about the intellectual rigor of a comedy like Seinfeld (page 84):

"To parse the humor of more nuanced shows - Cheers or Friends, for example - the scripts will sometimes demand that you know some basic biographical information about the characters. (Carla will make a snotty reference to Sam Malone's sobriety, without bothering to explain that he once had a drinking problem; Rachel will allude to Monica's overweight childhood).  Nearly every episode of Seinfeld or the Simpsons, however, will contain a joke that makes sense only if the viewer fills in the necessary supplemental information - information that is delibrately withheld from the viewer.  If you haven't seen the "Mulva" episode, or if the name "Art Vandelay" means nothing to you, then the subsequent references - many of them arriving years after their original appearance - will pass on by unappreciated.

At first glance, this looks like the soap opera tradition of plotlines extending past the time frame of individual episodes, but in practice the device has a different effect.  Knowing that George uses the alias Art Vandelay in awkward social situations doesn't help you understand the plot of the current episode; you don't draw on past narratives to understand the events of the present one.  In the 180 Seinfeld episodes that aired, seven contain references to Art Vandelay: in George's actully referring to himself with that alias or invoking the name as part of some elaborate lie.  He tells a potential emploer at a publishing house that he likes to read the fiction of Art Vandelay, author of Venetian Blinds; in another, he tells an enemployment insurance caseworker that he's applied for a latex salesman job at Vandelay Industries.  For storytelling purposes, the only thing that you need to know here is that George is lying in a formal interview; any fictitious author or latex manufacturer would suffice.  But the joke arrives through the echo of all those earlier Vandelay references; it's funny because it's making  a subtle nod to past events held offscreen.  It's what we call in a real-world context an "in-joke" - a joke that's funny only to people to get the reference.  And in this case, the reference is to a few fleeting lines in a handful of episodes  - most of which aired years before.  Television comedy once worked on a scale of thirty seconds: you'd have a setup line, and then a punch line, and then the process would start all over again.  With Seinfeld, the gap between setup and punch line could sometimes last five years."

Again, I'd like to provide a bit more of a review when I write my next book post, but I think you can tell I recommend Everything Bad Is Good For You as a solid read with some interesting points to make.  It'll also help you feel better about playing video games and watching television every once in a while (or more!).