Gay Marriage and All of the Debates Over It

This very well may be the first blog that I'm doing for this particular blog (ie all Psych, all the time) that is really and truly considered a current event. The other posts I've done--the few that exist, that is--have been current in the grand scheme of things, but not before today have I chosen to write about something that is dominating the news in every form imaginable. I don't regret stretching the "current" part of "current event" just a bit, especially since I often don't know where I stand on issues as well as I'd like before I formulate an argument. I take full blame for being out of the loop; I very rarely look at newspapers and the sound on my cable being broken kind of hurts the whole "watching the news" effort. Occasionally, I'll catch the evening news (or at least a small portion of it) at my parents after DWTS before I head back home...but it's mostly local news and my attention wanes quickly and considerably once it comes on. It doesn't help that I've usually been awake for hours by that time and therefore I'm exhausted; worse still, when I have to get in bed for my 6 AM Wednesday shift at work on Tuesday night, the happenings on the news kind of takes a back seat...in a stretch Hummer. I have actually come to look forward to and enjoy that early morning shift, especially the part that includes me not having to deal with the public other than my work friends for a full 4 hours before we open--I get so much done and it's quiet! Okay, there's country music blaring in my ear either from my iPod, iPhone, or over the loud speaker if I'm there with Caroline--but it's quiet other than that enjoyable distraction. That being said, I'm not-- nor have I ever been--a morning person, so 5 AM still tends to kick my ass a little. By the time I get to work, but a large portion of my subconscious always thinks it's some kind of really lame, aggravating joke when my alarm goes off at 5 AM...and at 5:10...and at 5:15. Regardless though--what is going on in the news is perhaps the furthest thing from my mind on any given day, and especially on Tuesday nights!

To be honest, I wasn't even aware that Obama had given a speech expressing his view on gay marriage; in fact, it wasn't until I arrived at work and Brandi showed me the video clip on YouTube that it even appeared on my radar. Sad, I know, but true. Look, here's the deal. I hate politics. And not in the way my mother says that and then proceeds to talk about them while drawing you into debate after debate for the next two hours; no, I genuinely detest politics. I think politicians are generally (not always!) deceitful, conceited, ignorant, and money hungry. Then again, that description could very well apply to the majority of those in other professions as well, but when people choose to live their lives so much in the public eye and constantly try to sneak random, often damaging to many people, bylaws into every single law they try to pass--well, I'm not a fan overall. While I'm not a huge fan of Obama, I don't hate him. I admire his speaking ability and how much he seems to care and relate to the average citizen, and the same holds true for Michelle Obama--but she looks like a horse. I know, I know--who cares? The thing is, I wouldn't if it weren't for hearing SO MANY PEOPLE exclaim how beautiful she is and compare her to Jackie O. STEP OFF OF THAT! She does have some killer arm muscles though--I'll give her that. Anyway, I digress AGAIN!

Brandi had pretty much told me what to expect from the video, so I expected to be happy to hear of his support of gay marriage...and then I thought I'd move on from the emotional realm in that regard. WRONG. HOLY CRAP WRONG! I'm fully aware that Obama (as for all Presidents) has a speech writer, and that makes a big difference. But like him or not, the man gives one hell of a speech. I'm fairly certain that, for this particular speech, he had little if any help in the writing process. When he spoke of his daughters and their inability to understand why the parents of some of their friends--parents who just happen to be gay--couldn't get married. Children don't see the world in the same way as adults do so much of the time, and I believe we are at the losing end of that deal. Obama's daughters saw parents that loved each other and their kids, behave like a normal family, laugh and cry and act just as any human does day to day--and yet, they couldn't get married. They don't want a "civil union", and children seem to understand that more so much of the time it seems. To those who act as though gay couples should be happy with a civil union because it is essentially the same thing as marriage--back off! If you can so easily try to appease them (and the rest of us for that matter) and make them think as you do, how about you change YOUR beliefs? If marriage is essentially the as a civil union, then let them get married and shut up about it. Oh, what's that? "God says...?"

First off, no he doesn't. Second, separation of church and state means that we shouldn't make laws based on what our personal religions tell us. If a church is fine, even celebratory, over allowing a gay couple to marry within its walls, why should you not be okay with it? As soon as somebody forces you to have a gay marriage, I promise we'll talk. Until then, mind your business. On a much smaller scale, it's similar to how I feel about people insulting, say, my tattoos. They see the one on my wrist and condemn me for marking up my skin--never once asking what it may represent. The one on my wrist is for TWLOHA, and it reminds me not to be self destructive (ie starve or cut myself). I scarred myself intentionally--and beautifully--once over 2 years ago to remind myself not to do it in other ways every day. People are much more accepting of tattoos these days, so it's not a fair comparison, but since it does still come up and people do still speak seemingly just to offend me at times--it's all I've got. Also, it totally blows their mind when they learn I have a SECOND tattoo (really, the first I got) on my hip. Blasphemy! Or, 2 completely separate decisions and acts performed 4 years apart. Either way.

The point is, so many people in our world (and especially in our society in particular) feel the need to climb atop their moral high horse "for the better of....their kids, parents, teachers, their dog...."--who knows. In reality, the VAST MAJORITY of these people aren't trying to protect anybody. Instead, they are trying to be heard...usually to attempt to sway others to believe as they do. Just--stop it, okay? The more you shove your beliefs--especially religious ones, and even more so in the Bible belt where I reside--down the throats of others, the less likely you are to ever be heard or respected for just about anything that comes out of your mouth. I'm all for debates, and on crabby days it's true that I really just want to fight my opinion on...anything. But generally speaking, when I debate I truly want to hear another person's perspective and point of view on any given topic, and I have far more respect for those who want the same--even if we're all but tearing out the eyes of the other person. Probably 70-80% of the time, my opinion on the given topic changes very little, if any, and I'm sure that's true of the other person as well. Still, I learned something new and/or strengthened my own beliefs. If you can't have a rational, civil debate with another person about anything ever, perhaps you are the problem. Even better, that 20-30% leftover from the above statistic? Those are the times that I feel my way of thinking (and/or approaching the topic) was altered enough to matter in my mind. Complete change of the entire belief system? Rare, if ever. But the breaking down of the walls of judgement and an added layer of meaning or understanding for somebody not like myself? Absolutely.


Years ago, as in when I was in elementary and middle school, I was avidly pro-life and thought I was against gay marriage, though that didn't seem to rattle me as much. But then I grew up and began to live. First off, I had been all wrong about what pro-life vs. pro-choice even meant--a problem I still see everywhere, including in my own parents, which I find appalling on so many levels. Previously, I thought pro-choice meant pro-abortion--clearly, I was wrong. Immediately, I started to waver in my personal pro-life vendetta. As I got older and realized the full implications of pro-life, however, my wavering belief system was fully annihilated. Just in terms of myself, I don't want--nor can I imagine the pain that goes along with all of this--anybody, EVER, to tell me what I can and can't do with my body. Yes, a few people will use abortion as a sick (and crazy expensive) form of birth control. You can't control the masses, even if the government thinks they will find a way. People will be stupid, and reckless, and arrogant, and cruel. But I am not one of those people, nor are the very large majority of pro-choice individuals. Truth be told, I'd have one hell of a time getting an abortion--mostly because I'm the uber-emotional type that cries not just at TV commercials, but also because of a cereal box (nostalgia FTW!). Seeing as how I've never been put in that situation (thankfully!), I can't be 100% certain what I would decide to do. I am, however, certain that my decision would be well thought out, and would change based on the background circumstances involved. If I were raped (again) and became pregnant from that, I think I would have a hard time distancing the child growing inside of me from the hateful person behind so much pain, and I fear I'd associate the child with that act way too much. But again--I don't know. All I know is that I should get to make that choice. If counseling is required, I fully support that. I'm fully aware of the fact that people make rash decisions, and I think therapy would be beneficial regardless of the ultimate decision. Recently, all kinds of new laws and rules in the world of the abortion debate are popping up, and it sickens me. It's always something, isn't it?

But I didn't start this blog to talk about abortion, though it is definitely relevant on the emotional scale to the gay marriage debate. Here's what's up--I'm a total bitch, except for when I'm not. I'm loud and opinionated and can be hurtful. I'm growing up, but it's taking time and effort. People infuriate me, but I love them. I often want to slap a dozen people a day, but in the end?  

I REALLY JUST WANT PEOPLE TO BE HAPPY. 

That is what we all should want, especially if we ever want to be happy ourselves. There are terrible people out there for sure, but most people? ARE NOT. There are really mean, spiteful, cruel gay people out there-- but there are no more within that community as there are in any other group. Indeed, it seems as if there may actually be fewer. They want the right to marry, and then they want to live their lives. Being gay doesn't mean there are other stereotypical strings attached, and the effort and energy it takes to judge and condemn others could really be much better spent on bettering yourself. Work on not judging others so much, and we'll just be over here celebrating a marriage. Cool?

My respect level for Obama skyrocketed after watching that video--not just because of his support of gay marriage, but in his desire to be honest with all of us. It was a very real talk, very human, very much full of a father's love and pride. I may disagree with the rest of his speeches throughout his presidency--or more likely, just fail to listen to many of them altogether, if we're being honest--but for this moment, in his decision to voice his opinion fully knowing that many will be very angry (and very vocal about their anger), by choosing to speak from his own heart and feelings, and by believing honesty is more important than popularity in situations such as these--well, there exists in me forever a degree of respect and a heightened admiration for Obama.Yes, forever, because I don't think he will take it back one day just because he can. That speech was genuine, honest, and real--and I have a great deal of respect for that.

Part of me wants to see the reactions and comments on public forums regarding Obama's speech, but the bigger part of me that still hasn't looked, truly doesn't care what others think. People are nasty online, as if somehow they are more powerful when only their venomous words can be seen while their faces remain hidden. I'm fully aware that most of the responses will be ugly, hurtful, petty...so many unpleasant things. The part of me that wants to read the comments is made up of the knowledge that the minority--even if very small--that will be kind, no matter what their stance on the matter, will always be able to bring me up way more than anything negative could bring me down. Still, I'm fully aware of people's ignorance this morning. I don't really need to see it in print. Coffee first?

Anyway, in case it wasn't obvious, I fully and completely support gay marriage. Because I support happiness. Many friends of mine are gay, and I can't fathom never seeing any of them get married. But even if I didn't have any gay friends, or know any gay people, I would still support gay marriage. There are many things about me, many issues that have plagued me for years, that people judge me for because they don't understand. Being hatefully judged over and over again changes you, even though I think I felt this way all along. Now, however, I'm going to be more vocal about it. I will never judge the decision of others in their quest for happiness simply because I do not understand it. I'm not saying I'll never judge anybody again; instead, I'll try harder to be fully informed before I make my assessment. And I will never condemn gay marriage.


I WILL NEVER JUDGE THOSE STRIVING FOR HAPPINESS, ACCEPTANCE AND LOVE. AS I WOULDN'T WANT TO BE JUDGED--AS I DAILY HOPE TO NOT BE FOR FIVE SECONDS-- I WILL NOT JUDGE OTHERS. 


I WANT MORE THAN ANYTHING FOR PEOPLE TO BE HAPPY, HOWEVER THAT MAY COME ABOUT. 

Except if killing, raping or maiming people makes you happy--then we'll have to talk. And have you committed. Fair's fair.

The Holidays in Retail: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly...and the Insufferably Stupid

I've come to the conclusion that I may or may not have too many blogs. I don't write often, but when I post in one, I want to post in all of them...and 6 hours later, my legs are way past asleep. Oh well, I like all the blogs so, for now, they're here to stay!

For this post, I decided I want to talk more about the personal than the public, since all of the other posts have dealt in large part with very public cases first and foremost. That being said, it does very much involve the public--that is, the very rushed, annoyed, obnoxious public in retail stores everywhere during Christmas (and the week after for returns, which I used to hate, but now I kind of just laugh at people--usually not to their faces...). Whether people want to believe me or not, I truly do use my Psychology degree EVERY DAY at work, and during the holidays, well...multiply by 1000ish and that should give you a glimpse of an idea of what retail work and customer service jobs are really like during the holiday season...and why it never gets old to use psychology to make somebody feel like a jackass (only if they deserve it, of course). It feels doubly as awesome when I know that the person is going to figure out 10 miles down the road that I was, in fact, questioning their intelligence. For kicks, really.

Nah, I'm kidding. Okay, I'm not--but I don't do it often! They really do deserve it, I swear! But anyway...this is my 3rd Christmas working at the bookstore. At this point, it really does just get funnier and funnier. For example, our receipts automatically spit out one gift receipt with your regular one starting on Thanksgiving Day. I'm kind enough to ask if they need more than one, and unfortunately, said customer looks confused as to what I'm asking 97% of the time. Approximately. My favorite response when they actually hear me is something along the lines of, "Well, no! She wants this book. It was on her list." Okay first off--don't raise your voice to me for asking if I can make life more convenient for you. Second, unless you are the only person in the whole world--no siblings, friends, nothing--who received said Christmas list, GET A GIFT RECEIPT. The year "Matilda" came out on video, I received 3 or 4 of them--thanks to gift receipts, I could trade them in and end up with four different awesome movies instead of 4 copies of one. I totally still have my copy of that movie too; it never gets old. Ever. Anyway, sometimes I print off an extra one anyway and just put it with their wad of 50 other receipts that prints off of every transaction. But yeah--you know that saying, "The customer is always right"? Whoever said that was a jackass...and also wrong. You better believe if I go into a store and ask an employee for help or an opinion on something, I'M GOING TO BELIEVE THEM. Think about it--they are the ones who are there day in and day out, refreshing the shelves and watching what sells. YOU are not, so stop acting like a know it all. If you really are a know it all, then find it yourself, dude. Which reminds me, if somebody says they can't do a return for a valid reason (like not having the receipt), they aren't lying for fun (well, I can't speak for everybody, but I'm just saying) or just to get a rise out of you. And as adorable and the back and forth banter of, "I'm going to need you to go ahead and do this return," "well, sir, my computer system won't allow it," "Yeeeeah, I know you can do it, so I'm gonna need you to just do that for me," "actually sir, this giant box on the screen that says I can't and gives no override option means, like I said, I CAN'T DO THE RETURN," "But, I know you really can, so..."..."Sir, let me stop you right there. This could go on for literally hours, because I'm just that stubborn and also, you know, right. So I'm going to call my manager up here so he can tell you the exact same thing I've told you 9 times now, word for word, and then y'all can duke it out. Deal?"

Although I know I'm guilty of occasionally misdirecting my own anger at innocent strangers, waiters, customer service employees...typically after a long day of dealing with my own short-fused, often dim-witted customers of my own. Inevitably, I always feel terrible for taking out my problems on people who don't deserve it (and have already more than likely had to deal with many, many stupid people that day) and nine times out of ten I will circle back just to apologize to them. Very, very few times people have come back to apologize to me, and it means more than they could ever understand. Treating others like human beings--and therefore being a decent human being yourself--is way more important than the majority of society seems to realize, or even care to try and realize. Unfortunately, since everybody--for the most part--seems to want everything to go online instead of staying in stores where they would have to--GASP--engage in conversation with other human beings. The decline in social skills that I've already seen at work and in my personal life is disturbing--HILARIOUS most of the time too, yes, but more so incredibly sad. It's not surprising given America's apparently insatiable thirst for the newest, best, shiniest in all things technological, but I shudder to think of the "oh shit" moment 20-30 years from now when people realizes some things need to be in person, and that nothing will ever be better online. I just hope that in 10, 20, 50 years I still remember that treating people with respect is always more important than anything material in this world, and this is coming from a girl who hates living paycheck to paycheck and sometimes just can't stand having to budget every aspect of my life down to--quite literally--the penny. Hopefully, my personality and especially the ten years (so far) that I've worked in customer service will help with this is the future.

This past Saturday--the last weekend before CHRISTMAS, mind you--the entire network system (that runs the registers, customer service computers, and the office computer that holds all our store information and connection to the corporate office) went down for SEVEN HOURS, ie the majority of my shift. It was hell all by itself, as we couldn't take checks or gift cards, nor could we issue gift cards, or look up discount cards, and then there was the fact that it was the Saturday before Christmas--oh, and the fact that people are douche bags. To be fair, about 90-95% of my customers were awesome, being patient and encouraging me through the day and, best of all, vocally standing up for all of the employees when the select few were complete nightmares. I mean, COMPLETE NIGHTMARES. Petty, childish, impatient, rude, selfish--these are just a few of the adjectives I could list to describe those who tried their hardest to make the day even worse than it already was, if that would have even been possible. At the end of my shift, I sat down and went kind of catatonic for a while, and then fell over my sore, half numb feet when I tried to stand up. When I went to bed that night, I slept like a rock. I may have literally died for a few hours--THAT is how asleep I was. It would have been a stressful day anyway, and then when the system went down, all of the employees were running solely off a combination of adrenaline and espresso. LOTS of espresso. And then those few jackasses of society that decided that it was obviously imperative to voice their frustrations and whining tirades--as loud as they could possibly manage--to anybody and everybody who would listen. Oh who am I kidding, they yelled just to hear themselves talk most of the time. One woman went on forever about how "we always do this kind of thing" and how "she didn't want to shop with us anymore" and lots of other crap I zoned out in order to restrain myself from hitting her in the face. Literally. Nothing would have felt better in that moment--and by moment I mean nearly 10 minutes--than just punching her in the face. She was mad that we wouldn't take her check--she seemed to think it was personally my decision just to piss her off. In fact, most of the people who complained really seemed to think this was something we could fix in the store. When the system first went down, even I assumed it was going to be a brief, minor inconvenience, because it typically is and rarely lasts longer than half an hour; the norm for this kind of thing is less than 10 minutes. Turns out, it happened to every store on the kind of network we have, and each stayed down for hours and hours. Even more annoying was the fact that everything that would actually scan took forever, and then the printing out (usually like 20-30 seconds) took about 2-3 full minutes to run through--and printed out any and all receipts that I cold possibly need.

Since we couldn't look up cards and don't have a way to explore if the validity of those whorclaimed they had one if they didn't have the card with them , and if they said they were sure it was, we just had to do a 10 or 20% off and go with it. I still managed to get 13 cards, but since I probably would have gotten closer to 40 with a working network, and we would have way more cards--AND I would have gotten that spiff pay from the the service leader status I achieved early Thursday morning. I am beyond pissed that we are being held accountable for what happened that day, and that my money is not being given to me again as a result. At this point, I literally don't have the money to buy FOOD with these pathetic paychecks, and something is going to have to change. But this past week? Yeah, I'll have to have words with a few of the higher ups. I know life isn't fair, but this crosses the line. Especially since from what I can tell, we are going to be chastised heavily for it (won't know for sure until after office day tomorrow). THAT is unacceptable.

So, what does all of this have to do with psychology? In a word, everything. Humans are, by nature, social creatures. We tend to feed off the energy of others, and the behavior and demeanor of the crowd (read, "crowd mentality"), can often work to calm people down or rile them up way beyond what would have naturally occurred otherwise. Happiness, depression, anxiety, sense of adventure, honesty, and so on--all of these are affected by the crowd mentality. Not caused mind you, but affected for sure. Even though I know many over-the-top, negative outbursts in public--and for that matter, in private--are created as a direct result of psychological reflection, they can still do a number on my emotions. It can feel a million times worse to those who don't understand (or believe in, but let's not go there) the basics of psychology, let alone the intricate details of the inner workings of the field, and therefore, of humans in general. Subconsciously, it is quite clear and ridiculously simple to see the workings in everyday life...but how often do we pay attention to the lessons our subconscious is trying to show us? Of course, some people are just mean-spirited, and only seem able to feel positively about themselves after they have pushed everybody around them--strangers, friends, family--down. Once they have made everybody else feel as miserable as they are, only then do they feel successful and happy. There is probably a reason, or a plethora of reasons more than likely, why they are like this. They may or may not even be aware of the reasons, but their subconscious most certainly will be. If they would let me, anybody, in for a moment, there may be more room for understanding on my end instead of the rush of anger that they produce to others. Defense mechanisms are funny that way though--powerful and deeply rooted, almost impossible to destroy.

Also, it wouldn't hurt if everybody was forced to work several different kind of jobs in their lives, however briefly the experience may be. Examples? Server, cashier, customer service representative, manual labor. To name a few. I've done all but one--manual labor--but I've done volunteer work that was labor intensive, enough so for me to appreciate those who do it day in or day out. Whatever the job, the process of working with the public, of seeing life through the eyes of the person assisting you, does wonders for changing the way people treat others. For me, I don't have a sense of entitlement when I ask somebody for help (actually, I naturally assume that they know better than me because they are there day in and day out and I'm not), I try to be patient with people (and typically, though not always, succeed), I don't blame the worker unless it is completely and totally necessary and accurate, I would never intentionally seek out somebody's boss to get them in trouble just because we have an issue at that time (unless it dangerous or crosses the line--even then, I try to be pleasant about it and cause the least amount of problems), I always tip very well (side note: servers make approximately $2.15/hour, depending on the state and place of employment, so tips are how they pay their bills, eat, and live--remember that next time you leave a crappy tip--so if I can't afford to get my meal and tip well, then I don't go to that place), I try my best to help people as much as I can (especially financially), and I try to always leave an interaction with a "thank you", "have a nice day", or the like. Sometimes people make it very difficult to do that, but if you can help it--and we as humans really can't always help it, but usually can--be the bigger person and don't buy into their ploy to cause a fight. Maybe one day, they'll remember it and do the same, or even pay it forward. Even better, the less drama you create and the more you keep your cool helps to give credence to the times when you do lose your shit and yell. It's more likely to be respected and listened to when it comes from somebody who does cause a scene at the drop of a hat.

Psychology is so interwoven in the world of working with the public that I could go on for hours about this, but I won't. What I will say is that, when people ask me (or most likely, whine to me lame excuses about how hard it is) how I have managed to do so well at my job for nearly 3 years and still hit my points of sale and sell things day in and day out, I can only give two pieces of advice. Listen to/ observe your customers based on their personality and mannerisms--and also what they are purchasing in my case--and build a conversation with them. People like to feel special, and drawing similarities between them and yourself does just that. Plus, they get to hear concrete reasons why something would be good for THEM, and not just the general, run-of-the-mill speech nobody can connect with easily. Put the seed of an idea to get said item that you are promoting, and sometimes let it go at that. Within a couple of visits, they often end up taking your advice after all. On the flip side, push things just a little more than you think necessary. Americans typically say "no" as a reflex, and you have to talk them out of it at times. Don't be afraid to make people annoyed, but don't intentionally be a douche either.

Second piece of advice? Study at least general psychology. Better yet, get a bachelor's in it. It will serve you well, and it is just freaking fun to have a leg up in reading people. Plus, a degree in psychology makes you a total bad ass. Just trust me on this one.

Baby Lisa: Mixed Emotions; No Gut Instinct

I really haven't had much time to think about extraneous things the past few months, so my psychology current events research has had to be cut in large part. It's sad, but not too upsetting, because I know my love of all things psychological won't ever fade, and eventually I'll have more time to brush up on these things--in like five year, but who's counting really?

I thought about writing about the Penn State sex scandal, which is sad, to say the least, but there is a story that caught my eye even more because of the blatant and alarmingly obvious inconsistencies throughout the entire situation. I'm referring to the "Baby Lisa" kidnapping scandal, which strikes me as even more bizarre by the day. Mostly, I'm disturbed because I can't personally decide for myself what I believe: did an intruder kidnap her or was it foul play within the family? This is disconcerting primarily because I RARELY have trouble forming a quick opinion/idea based on my gut instinct; sometimes it changes after more facts trickle down, but typically my beliefs on the matter stay pretty much the same as that gut instinct.

The thing is, I WANT to believe that the parent(s) are in no way to blame, and that may be driving my inability to decide what I believe really happened. Of course, it doesn't matter what I think in the long run, or at all haha, but it disturbs me that I just can't settle on one belief of guilt. If I go with family involvement, I think the mother seems to be the most likely to be involved, based on a few (seemingly) minor aspects of her story that seem to go back and forth. Yet again, it's such a strange story with some odd "coincidences", which brings me back to wanting to believe the intruder theory. Ahh! I hate being indecisive.

Before I go any further, I feel the need to express my feelings on the mother's actions the night of the kidnapping, according to her words and police reports quoting her side of the story. Allegedly, Lisa's mother (Deborah Irwin) had a friend over and, after the children were in bed, the two drank some wine and had a relaxing movie/chatting kind of night, at which point in time the friend left to walk (I believe) home. I'm not certain of the exact time the friend left, but I've seen both 8:30 PM and close to 11 PM as possible times. Fine and dandy, right? I like wine, and I'm not opposed to parents having a glass (or perhaps two, but that's really all I can justify) once the kids are in bed. Obviously, I can't really condone getting fall down drunk when young children are under the same roof. Should an emergency arise, parents need to be fully aware and functional to assist in any situation, no matter if the emergency is with them or the children themselves. Really, I would assume I would want to have somebody be completely sober at the home too, in case driving is necessary. Initially, my understanding was that Deborah only partook in a couple of glasses, and in no way was more than perhaps slightly tipsy. Not totally okay in my book, but nothing I would personally berate or judge the poor woman for doing. However, each new report that surfaced showed the opposite of sobriety to be Deborah's state the night of the kidnapping. Though it is hearsay, and I can in no way be certain as to the factual nature of the story, it seems that Deborah was actually fairly intoxicated that night. Indeed, she even said she "may have passed out", and doesn't remember if she checked on her daughter again after her friend left for the evening. THIS is where my problems begin with Deborah. Honestly, as much as I try to not be overly judgmental (in my life in general, and also in this case), I'm pretty sickened at the idea that Deborah could have been falling down drunk while her children slept in the house. I'm sure she thought no emergency would arise with her children, who were safely in bed, but such assumptions are dangerous. Moreover, her intoxicated state may have gotten in the way of her regular night safety precautions, as in locking all doors and securing all windows. If an intruder did break in, on the ONE night shift Jeremy Irwin (Deborah's husband and Lisa's father) was working a night shift in recent history, perhaps they saw that one or more entrances were left unlocked; she would have certainly made their task much simpler if this is the case. Drunk or not, she really should have checked on the entry points in her house.

As the story has unfolded, it seems that cell phones also went missing the night that Lisa did, and a phone call was made from one of the stolen phones within the conceivable hours Lisa could have been kidnapped. It was a very short call (I want to say either 50 seconds or 1 minute and 50 seconds--either way, an extremely quick call), and the person that received the call has said she has no idea as to who would have even answered her phone at such an hour. Allegedly, she has no memory of talking to anybody about anything around that time. Now, they are also saying that surveillance video in the surrounding area shows suspicious activity by an unidentified person around the Irwin house during the possible kidnapping time. These two facts sway me towards the intruder theory, and leave me praying that the family had nothing to do with it. From what I can tell. while the Irwin family wasn't poor, they don't come off as exceptionally rich either, which makes a kidnap for ransom scenario possible, but not probable. Children who are kidnapped this young are often taken by either family members, or by people who are unable to have or for other reasons do not have children of their own. Psychologically disturbed most often, these people can often convince themselves, and often close friends and family, that the child is in fact theirs. Sometimes they feign a pregnancy, but with a child nearly age one, I would assume that, if this is the scenario, they kidnapper would claim adoption of the child. Either way, the would consider the child theirs at that point. Rare cases, typically not in the US but more common in other countries, have the parents working with the kidnappers to somehow get money out of the deal. How this works, I'll never know, but think Man on Fire, starring Denzel Washington and Dakota Fanning. But, once again, that family was extremely well off--and people knew it.

The bigger part of me wants to believe in the parents' innocence, and I assume this stems from my disdain by the sheer number of children being kidnapped in the US as of late. Part of me is jaded by this, causing me to automatically want to blame the parents because all excuses tend to SOUND made up after hearing these stories more often these days. But the other part of me wants to believe in good parents, ones who love their children and want only the best for them. My heart wants to believe that they could have nothing to do with it, because why would a person (or people) have a child, begin to bond and love and nurture the child, and then assist in a kidnapping--or worse, be part of the killing (and subsequent cover up) of that child. I'm sure accidents do happen, and I'm sure it would be hard to go to the police with the knowledge that, accidentally or not, you were responsible for the death of your child. But, if that's the case, I would think that their would be a break down in your emotions--producing not flaws and/or changes in their story, per se, but inconsistencies in emotions and the ability to keep up the facade. Knowing I've never been in this type of situation, and also that I don't even have children of my own at this point, I realize my opinion on this part of the story may seem irrelevant. I just hope I know myself well enough to believe that I would be honest, and that justice would be what I most want for my child.

Deborah Irwin has admitted that she was drinking that night, so perhaps an accident did occur. Tragic, avoidable, and heart wrenching to think about, yes, but possible. Where the breakdown occurs is, if this scenario is the right one, how could you dispose of or hide the body of your now deceased child? Again, I don't know what happened, and I don't want to jump to any conclusions or pass judgement on people I have never met who are going through immense amounts of pain. This story always brings back the memory of hearing about the death of JonBenet Ramsey, and I never thought the parents did it. That case is still unsolved, and maybe I'm naive, but they were all ruled out by DNA evidence, and I just never saw them as the type to go to such lengths to make it appear that an intruder broke in, sodomized and killed their daughter, and then left her body in the house like old trash. People always say that their emotions just weren't right, but how in the hell would we--any of us--know such a thing? Even those who have experienced the same type of loss never experienced THAT PARTICULAR LOSS, so they could empathize, but not fully relate. Poor Patsy Ramsey was harrassed because she was too emotional, even in public for her DAUGHTER'S FUNERAL. Seriously, people think it was AN ACT? Outrageous. The worst, I feel, is what John Ramsey had to go through when people accused him of being too stoic too soon after JonBenet's death and funeral. Here's what's up: John lost a daughter, Beth, in 1992 (I think) in a tragic car accident, so he had a method of dealing with grief that may be different from what is seen as typical. I read the Ramsey's book, and though I'm aware it's skewed since it's only their side of the story, John stated that he was able to keep it together in public--as was his nature, according to him and close friends and family--but had a particular room in his brother's house where most of his grieving took place. He would also grieve behind other closed doors. Also, people often forget that they still had a young child at home (not forgot enough to name him as a suspect for a while--he was 9--that accusation makes me ill) who was most likely scared and overcome with emotion over losing his sister, emotions he may not have known how to express or fully deal with at that age. Nine year olds are aware of what is going on around them, and certainly far smarter than we give many credit for, but the loss of a sister, your built in best friend in childhood...I'm not sure how I would have handled that situation, or what emotions I would have been able to understand and express, when I was only 9 years old.

Perhaps my interest in the Ramsey case, and my hope to this day, nearly 15 years later, that JonBenet will get her justice, even though Patsy has passed away and Burke and John have been aged well beyond their years by these life events, perhaps that case is a big reason I want to believe so badly in the innocence of the Irwins.

I guess I didn't talk much psych in this blog, but that's because I'm still unsure as to what pertains to this case. Psychosis and delusion? Munchhausen's by Proxy? Sociopathy? Perhaps I'll write again once more comes to light in this story.

I hope that will be a happy post.

Sharing the Blame

I'm admittedly an infrequent blogger at best on my LittleRebel AND Tumblr sites, and I have always stated from the beginning of my blogging life that this was probably going to be the case. Every time I write a LR blog, it ends up taking literally hours because I'm such a perfectionist when it comes to my writing, and my infrequent posts tend to lead to multiple updates merging into typically ginormous blogs. Honestly, I'm glad I'm this kind of blogger; I've said it before and I'll say it again--I detest people who overestimate their importance and our interest in every single aspect and moment of their lives. I feel the same way when it comes to FB--I relaly don't need to know that an hour ago you ate 3 chicken tenders and wish you hadn't bought the 5 piece meal because you wasted it, then you stopped by to see your Mom, and now you're debating a nap. Sometimes I go through fazes where I find myself oversharing, and I was most definitely guilty of it upon first getting on FB, but typically I rarely update my status. That's not to say that my statuses are always important or interesting--indeed, I bet they rarely are--but at least I'm not being annoying by clogging up my friends' news feeds with inane rambling. Pretty sure I do that enough in person as it is haha! (Of course, it must be noted that there is a blog I read almost daily--the author blogs 5 or 6 times a week on average--but it's never boring or annoying). Ultimately, my life is relatively routine between work and using my "days off" to clean my landlord's house (to discount my rent), planning and working on various organizational projects (for pay), or clean my own house. You would be hard pressed to find me lounging around all day on an off day--and I prefer it this way, and therefore love the days I do lay around more than most--but even the activities that don't fit into my routine have their own of sorts. So--not much to update day to day. My Tumblr blog is almost entirely dedicated to things relating to SCI, though sometimes I discuss literary topics and non-book-club books there too, so I never intended to write on that one more than a couple times a month. As of right now, I really only write once a month, at the beginning, and post a picture of that month's selection. I would love to get to the point where I'm writing at the beginning AND either in the middle (to note my progress of the SCI book, thoughts, and so forth) or at the end once we've had our monthly discussion (to build of the viewpoints and thoughts of the others and put them into writing a little more). It's doubtful, but I can hope.
The point is, I started THIS blog thinking I would write in it all the time because I love psychology and always find it fascinating to apply the science of and behind it to current events...but that doesn't seem to be happening. I should have known that I'd want to do extensive research on each topic, and would therefore write longer but very thorough blogs, but that didn't even cross my mind. I think I'm going to aim to post on here once a month--fingers crossed!

For this post, I'm focusing less on a current event (though one will be discussed briefly) and more on one that happened ten years ago. Still kind of current, and definitely relevant and important, but not super up-to-date. The events in question? Casey Anthony and Andrea Yates. I know, I know--here we go.
For starters, the intense focus on the Anthony case, combined with the very poorly run trial (in my opinion) and my general disdain for Casey herself (and increasingly, Casey's mother as well) have for the most part made me want to avoid any social media and/or personal discussions that even remotely relate to the case. Usually, my psychologically driven mind cause me to do extensive, and usually pointless, research on such topics and events. This trial maks my skin crawl, and any interest I have in the specifics of the case are negated by my reluctance to give Casey even the smallest amount of my attention. I don't want to ever think that she will make money from me should she write a book or have a reality show or something equally stupid, but probable. I'm not surprised that she was found not guilty, because the prosecution apparently didn't feel the need to prepare for the trial at all to the point that I'm almost convinced they didn't really care about justice for Caylee (even if I had believed Casey to be innocent, I would expect and want to see a solid case from both sides). The defense was pretty weak, as well, but since the prosecution didn't present anything with solid evidence or backing, the defense's job of planting even the tiniest seed of doubt was pretty easy. I feel bad for the jury; I'm sure many of them thought she was guilty, but couldn't find a way to be able to back up a guilty verdict without referencing personal opinions. Of course, I'll never know for certain, but I'm pretty confident in my belief that she is completely guilty--of first degree murder, tampering with a corpse (this isn't the exact phrase, but you know what I mean), lying to and evading the police and the legal system as a whole, as well as the one offense she was found guilty of (check fraud). Sociopaths and psychopaths interest me a great deal, but in viewing the few clips from the trial I caught on the news and especially the still photos that I saw more of than live footage, I found myself repulsed and appalled instead of interested. People with abnormal levels and/or approachs to empathy and all human emotion will always fascinate me; it's not that I'm enthralled by their killing of others, but instead by trying to find any change in mood or emotion based on facial expressions, mannerisms, and the like. In psychology, we can always learn more and therefore increase our ability to help those with mental illnesses; more importantly, I think, humans need to see (from afar, for most), understand, and appreciate the absolute depravity the human race is capable of in order to appreicate and embrace the goodness and kindness that so many people so easily and readily overlook and/or take for granted.
Casey Anthony exhibits clearly so many sociopathic tendencies, and I think she should be sentenced to spend at least a couple of months in a facility to get a proper diagnosis (es) and the corresponding medications and therapies. There shouldn't be any shame in this, but there still exists enough of an overall awkward and uncomfortable understanding of psychology...so people are willing to just not discuss that option. What scares me most regarding Casey lies in the idea that she has already expressed the desire to have more children, even it with other prisoners while awaiting trial, and the seemingly genuine giddiness she feels at this thought. How she can even be able to consider another child with the shit storm that has overtaken her life over the MURDER of her daughter? Her chilling smile and on-demand tears are disturbing at best. More than anything, I'm fully aware that she may kill or strongly desire to kill any or all of her future kids. She may fight it, but if she did kill Caylee and is able to show no real emotion in discussing her daughter's death, she will be more likely to become a repeat killer. If so, we as a society probably won't know until it is too late for another child. And thus begins my tie-in to Andrea Yates, and the importance of learning from our mistakes, listening to those in authority, and laying the blame everywhere that it is due--even if it seems so minor in comparison to the overall crime.

The Andrea Yates case has always fascinated me, beginning with the first reports in early 2001--when I was 15--that so shocked the nation. Honestly, the case was shocking, but now I think I'm more shocked, and saddened, by how much it has faded from society's collective memory. Once we allow ourselves to figure such tragedies, they are free to happen again. Sure, little parts of the story will change, but the underlying issues and illnesses will not. Moreover, those that do remember the case in any detail only seem to focus on Andrea and her actions, illnesses, and the like. It's like nobody else even existed in the family besides her and the children anymore, and that is very much not true. I know that I'll get ripped to shreds for this, and I'm in no way excusing what Andrea did...and I know that Rusty went through an experience that I hope to never understand and his pain level must have been inexplicable to the layperson, but...I think Andrea having to shoulder all of the blame is pretty unfair. I'm not saying he should have been made to go to jail or join Andrea for a lengthy in an instituion, but it is far worse that he was able to walk free without regret or, more than likely, even the insinuation to his face that he should feel slight guilt. Before I did my research, I thought he got married and had kids much quicker after this tragedy than he did, but the fact that he was able to date, get divorced, get married and have kids within 7 years still seems a little off to me. He lost five kids in on fell swoop, and though I would never judge somebody's grief process (each and every person is different!)...something about his demeanor and attitude throughout the trial and in its aftermath just rubbed me the wrong way. Especially since I personally place about 35-40% of the blame on him. Yes, that much.
In researching Andrea's personal background and reviewing the coverage of that surrounded the case and trial, I kept being reminded that Andrea, though clearly driven enough to support herself as a nurse for several years before meeting Rusty, is at her core a relatively insecure and submissive individual by nature. Insecurity is an easy flaw to tap into and manipulate, sometimes even without meaning to do so--though obviously more so when that manipulation is executed intentionally. That being said, her tendency to be submissive probably caused more problems in the end. I have no doubt that Andrea wanted children, and she may very well have honestly shared Rusty's desire to have as many as nature would give them, but I find it hard to believe that she would continue to feel that way as she felt her psyche fragmenting and shattering, pulling her away from reality. According to her doctors, Andrea's depression really flared up and became known after the birth of their fourth child, Luke, in February of 1999. Odds are, however, she probably experienced some form of postpartum depression before that; the fact that the depression presented at such an intense level and already contained paranoia and anxiety levels indicates that the chemical imbalance had already existed prior to the meltdown that was the build up to her first suicide attempt. I find it hard to believe that Rusty, even if he spent the majority of time work or otherwise away from the home, would have failed to notice any signs or symptoms--even minor ones--of depression, anxiety, psychosis...or just weirdness (for lack of a better word). It seems that he enjoyed being the dominant component of his marriage, even with the lack of physical abuse for the duration of their entire relationship. More than anything, he probably intentionally failed to notice any indicators of mental imbalances in Andrea, and that more than likely was the dynamic of their relationship from the beginning. Mental illness or not, four children that young puts a strain--emotional, mental, physically, etc.--on even the strongest individuals. As Andrea stayed home with the children, he should have first and foremost respected that perhaps they should let their children grow up a little more before having any additional children. Poor baby Mary never had a chance, though, and that should have been obvious to Rusty before even her conception.
Disregarding for a moment what her psychiatrists said about having more children, the fact that Andrea had already attempted suicide at least three times, and threatened it at least once on top of that, should have been effective birth control by itself. A fair amount of the time, those who attempt suicide may turn that aggression outwards--so that should have at least subconsciously been a fear--but even if Rusty was in extreme denial of Andrea's ability and/or desire to harm their children, the potential consquences for their family of her suicide attempts alone should have had more of an impact in his decision making. Andrea was clearly a risk to herself, and likely spent most of her time lost in her own mind. Just that fact alone (that she was not mentally present and intensely preoccupied) should have caused enough concern to bring in help (ie a nanny or rotating babysitters so she wouldn't have to handle the kids alone). How he thought that bringing ANOTHER child into the world made any sense, I'll never know. Maybe he thought it would "snap her out of it"; perhaps once they discovered it was a girl after four boys made him believe she would react differently...maybe so many things. But the fact is, they had several doctors, and Andrea's primary psychiatrist multiple times--tell them point blank to NOT have more children. This was after Andrea had been diagnosed with postpartum psychosis instead of postpartum depression. Psychosis. Even if you don't know a lot about psychology, it is fairly obvious by the word itself that psychosis is a bad thing. Rusty and Andrea were told many times, together and separately, that having more kids, at least for a couple of years, would almost guarantee a resurgence of the psychosis she constantly had to be medicated for as it was, and more than likely to a much more severe degree. Once she learned she was pregnant, she went off her ant-psychosis medication, Haldol due to its strength and chance of being transferred to the baby. Since pregnancy hormones were what caused--or at the very least, triggered--her decline, one would think she would be pretty terrified about it and try to consult her doctor to get a lower dosage or...something. Of course, she may have become so submissive by this point that her completely blocked out her own opinion on the topic--even from herself.
Postpartum depression can cause people to lash out well before it even approaches psychosis level, which it rarely does in any case. More often than not, women may feel distanced from their child and have thoughts of harming them, but will internalized those feelings and harm themselves--whether it be physically, mentally, or both. Sometimes, it goes away on its own; other times, medication is required to help balance out the hormones and chemicals. Rarely do people have to stay on the meds long term; most women wean themselves off of it as their body and mind rebalance. No matter the solution path taken, these things take time. I can think of few women who would truly consider getting pregnant again while feeling so off internally. Right now, I can't recall if Andrea had any prior issues with depression--clinical, seasonal, mild, any at all--but I'm betting she did. Sometimes, though rarely, the hormones of pregnancy will "wake up" depressive parts of the brain; in other words, they won't really have a history of any noticeable depression or anxiety, but in actuality it existed all along. In Andrea's case, there probably were signs of mild depression at points throughout her young life, but who knows how that was handled in her family.
So, the Yates had already disregarded all medical and mental health advice in going ahead in trying and keeping the pregnancy. For a time, Andrea seemed to be coping, even after the birth of Mary. Upon the death of her father in March of 2001, however, she broke with reality again, refusing to take her medication (which she needed more than ever at this point), obsessively reading the Bible, and self-mutilating. She was hospitalized twice in just over a month between April and May of 2011. As a result, they would receive the second crucial piece of medical advice they chose to ignore. Everybody involved in Andrea's case agreed that she should NEVER be left alone, and especially never be allowed to be with the kids alone, for any period of time at all. Had they followed the instructions, there is a good chance that Andrea would have eventually (probably with some permanent meds and some temporary) stabilized and would no longer be considered a threat to herself or others (of course, it's hard to say on this as well, since they probably would have continued to have children). In other words, I doubt any of her doctors intended for her to live the rest of her life needing constant supervision around her children. The severity of Andrea's case would naturally extend the time it would take to get back to that stabilized point, but even in a milder case, she never should have been left alone with 5 small children one month after leaving the psychiatric ward. Maybe Rusty had to get to work early; maybe Andrea's mother literally couldn't get there an hour earlier; maybe they thought she was doing better enough to make that decision themselves; maybe they thought "It's one hour--what harm could she do in such a small amount of time?" Whatever the reason, she had that one hour the morning of June 20th, 2001. It took even less than the full 60 minutes to drown all five of her children; her mother had not arrived by the time she called the police and Rusty. She was a thin woman, but much bigger, older, and stronger than a 7 year old, a five year old, a three year old, a two year old, and a 6 month old--no contest. Add her psychosis on top of that, and she would have been pretty strong competition against even other adults. The children had no chance, and they didn't even see it coming...except 7 year old Noah. We can all hope that the children suffered very little or not at all, and convince ourselves there's a good chance of that, except for in Noah's case. He saw Mary in the tub and tried to run away; he fought hard before succumbing to drowning. He knew with certainty that he was being killed, and he knew that it was at the hands of his mother. That tears me up inside a little every time I imagine his last few moments on Earth. I can't imagine.

So yes, I of course blame Andrea for their deaths--she held each of them underwater until they stopped breathing. She killed them, no doubt. But now, ten years later and living in a mental hospital, her hormones and chemicals are as stable as they will ever be--and she no longer has that cloud of insanity over her actions. She has to live, in a virtual prison for the rest of her life, remembering that she had a family, that once upon a time she grew them in her body and cradled them in her arms, and she took it away from herself. Living with that realization every day? If nothing else, I applaud her strength for simply still being alive. There is no doubt that her mental illnesses drove her decision and actions that ultimately killed her children. While I feel it's not quite empathy for her, there is a definite, odd pang of sympathy for her in my heart. Even that is split--I imagine her pain and daily anguish now and feel that sympathy; then I imagine her meticulously drowning each child, and my heart grows cold towards her. It's a weird paradox, but I am pretty sure she is being punished for her actions, from herself more than anybody else.
But Rusty? Well, he received none of the blame, but he certainly ignored medical instruction as well as Andrea. And then got her pregnant again. And them left her alone with the kids. I remember seeing clips of the funeral for the five children, and my heart definitely went out to him then. He lost everything--his children, his wife, and I'm sure at least part of his sanity--in under an hour. I saw grief in his eyes, and lots of pain, but I'm not sure he felt any guilt. He honestly may not think he is guilty of anything. Or he may beat himself up every day for leaving them alone for that hour. I don't know him; I can't pretend to know what he thinks or feels. I don't even know what I believe would be a legal way to handle that.
For now, I think such things will have to fall to the psychological world. Educate people on the severity of these problems, and on how quickly someone can snap and change numerous lives. There is only so much advice on can give out; at some point, you have to just hope that they listen. Perhaps I merely wish that Andrea didn't have to carry the guilt all alone. Rusty divorced her (though I know he used to visit her pretty often and still might) and remarried. He has at least one child from that union. He has a family, and a life, and she has an instituation and bad memories. On the other hand, I'm sure he always feels like there should be 6 kids where there is only one. Creating a new life for yourself doesn't erase the pain of what has been lost. But he has creating something that at least helps; Andrea only has one family to dwell on--the one she destroyed.

When starting this blog, I was so angry at Rusty Yates, and I thought this was going to come out in angry bursts. In writing this, though, my criticisms have been softened a little and I realize my anger and lack of any ideas as to help won't help anybody. I do feel Rusty should have gotten some of the blame, but I'm sure the funeral of his kids was prison enough. I don't want to punish people like him, but instead educate them thoroughly before such an event. There should at least be the knowledge of possible consequences, but as long as we view people like Rusty only as a victim and not at all like a negligent accomplice, there will never be even a protoyple for such a thing. And I hate to wish for a situation like that to prevent itself--somebody has to die for that, and I wish that on NOBODY. But when tragedies strike, there are chances to learn. Any ideas on what would be appropriate for such a thing (if you even understand my brain's dilemma with this)? Sociopathy and psychopathy seem to be on the rise, or at the very least on the surface more these days, which in turns multiplies the chances of situations like this (psychosis patients often behave like sociopaths when they are in the midst of it; the difference, of course, is that they will eventually feel that empathy and sympathy that is clouded by the psychosis).

Hopefully next time I'll have more of a clear cut discussion--and a more current topic. Fingers crossed, but don't hold your breath. Haha.

Sociopaths, Not Psychopaths

Typically speaking, I hope to write blogs on this site that present current situations and discuss their psychological roots, consequences, and what it means for the rest of society (or at least those parts that it pertains to directly). Psychology geeks like me will read anything related to the subject and love to steer any topic back to the psychology of it all. It's obviously even more fascinating when there is a recent situation that expresses the ideologies and proves (or helps anyway) that psychology is very real and extremely relevant. In a society always on the go and already thinking about the next task even in the midst of the current one, relevancy that is quickly and distinctly obvious is extremely important. So typically I'll probably try to keep myself up to date in the world of psych through current events--news and using my degree simultaneously--WIN!

Today, however, I really just want to get on my mini soap box for a second about sociopathy and rehabilitation. True sociopaths are completely and permanently unable to empathize with others. Emotions like love, compassion, and despair (other than when caught) are not processed by a sociopath's brain in the same way it is through a "normal" person's brain. In all honesty, such emotions are not processed at all, but seem to pass through their mind without taking root--ever. Some sociopaths learn to emulate others and therefore are able to function more easily in society by fitting in with their peers. On the one hand, even the smallest examination by even a layperson will betray their false emotions; others can be fooled (especially children!) into these fake emotions just long enough to be caught in the sociopath's world--whatever and wherever that has been created in the sociopath's world. Many of these people become so adept at faking emotions that they essentially live two lives in one body. Ted Bundy, who killed dozens--if not hundreds--of young women was on his way to a life in politics with a girlfriend who was very much in love with him during the time he killed multiple people. She wasn't sick, or stupid, she was fooled by a master of disguise. His charm and good looks helped him fit in on college campus virtually without trying, and his respectful way of talking and friendly demeanor allowed him to abduct women before they could ever suspect a thing. He escaped from both jail and prison--yes, prison AFTER jail--once by convincing his guard friends to remove his shackles so he could prepare his own defense. They had no reason to doubt him, except that we now know that many sociopaths are persistant and stubborn to the point that they will say anything to get what they want and never feel that pang of remorse. They, quite literally, have nothing to lose.

When the medical and psychological worlds were first attempting to figure out the specifics and terminology for sociopathy, the majority wanted to believe that, even at its worst, sociopathy was something that could be rehabilitated and lived with; it would never go away, but they thought it could be controlled with outpatient services after the required inpatient time was fulfilled. They were very wrong.

I'll be the first to admit that, since we don't (and probably won't ever) know everything about the disease, not to mention severity in the individual as well as how each different person's genetic and personal makeup will be received in the brain, essentially making anybody's demeanor just unique enough to cause issues--all of these factors make it impossible for me to feel confident in saying that no sociopath can ever be rehabilitated. There is always hope for the future; but sometimes that optimism can result in your death. But the thing is this, many of the sociopaths who commit crime early in their lives and go to juvie or a lockdown mental society for less than 10 years--sometimes less than 5--don't receive even close to the quality or quantity of intense therapy just to scratch the surface of "normal", and they are released into the world with the belief that it was something they outgrew. Even those with years of good, intense therapy are most likely going to recommit the crime--usually murder--whether its 6 days , weeks, or months after their release. Rarely do officials force somebody t0 stay longer than "absolutely necessary", instead opting to free up a cell and make more money. It's terrifying to think about, but is generally the rule. Perhaps one day there will be a surgery, or a medication, or something that will make it possible for some cases to be "cured", but until that day, doctors need to stop acting as though it is already the case. Letting somebody out of jail, even 10, 20, 30 years after their last murder was committed, is essentially like arranging somebody's death. Many will fight the impulse for a long time, but eventually the need they feel, like extreme thirst or hunger, will win out over sanity. Sometimes, they kill themselves; most often, once the impulse is free after so much suppression, multiple people will lose their lives before that need is satiated.

People also forget that many of these sociopaths are really good actors, and while we're out looking for the blatantly deranged, it is the one who has perfected the bittersweet, single tear sliding down the cheek look that will take more lives. Many often confuse not feeling emotion with not being able to express it; there isn't anything wrong with their muscles, after all, and making your face copy what you've willed it to is exceedingly easy. In fact, the ones who look the most normal and happy go lucky scare me the most, because they have fooled so many people that they've almost tricked themselves.

I'm sick of hearing that proper rehab works for everything and everybody. That's simply not true, and such a fallacy is dangerous. I think everybody deserves a second chance--it will just have to be postponed until there is something to either sufficiently and adequately supress whatever is blocking their ability to feel empathy or a medication that deadens the impulses that drive to such violence. My faith in the psychology world is pretty unwavering, but I do believe that faith is in large part dependent on thorough, long term research. Even then, it won't work for everybody...if indeed it does for anyone. I guess my hope is that doctors and patients alike will stop be so reckless and impatient. I, for one, am very grateful that I went through weeks of testing, because that insured the proper medication as well as dosage. It has changed my life, but only because I was willing to heed the doctor's advice over my own. DUH PEOPLE! It is always important to listen to your own body, of course, but doctors tend to know a thing or two about what they are talking about...

I'm glad that the field of psychology has gained a little more respect the past few years, but there is still a loooooong way to go. There are so many people out there who refuse to even acknowledge psychology as a real field of study, and they certainly don't believe in mental illness. Um--how do you just not believe in something with so much proof? I'm guessing they also ignore the proof, but ugh so annoying! But as more people are getting on board with the reality and importance of psych0logy, I feel vast improvements--in morale, medications, tests, etc.--so now they just need to understand and share the sheer danger they are in as they continue to allow sociopaths to leave jail after serving next to nothing. Mostly, I'm just terried and appalled by the thought of feeling that unsafe.

Alright, I promise to write a very thorough blog next time, but I had to get on home and figure out all that situation--at work and at home*

Not replacing. Expanding.

Today I was thinking about how much I love Psychology and miss discussing it in my everyday life, and it very rarely makes its way into my other blogspot posts or my Tumblr. That being said, I use my degree daily, despite what people may think, but I don't normally find a way to bring up discussions from day to day. In all honesty, there are few people that I interact with in my daily life that have both the time and the interest in Psychology to even attempt a conversation with me, let alone actually enjoy what would most likely turn into heated discussions. Still, I want to keep up with new ideas and the like of Psych, and also retain all that I learned in college.

My plan is to write on this blog about the new happenings in the psycholgy world, the topics being discussed among scholars and doctors, subjects that pique my psych mind, and things of that nature; the LittleRebel blog will remain my public journal of sorts, while the Tumblr one is reserved solely for SCI book club related topics.

Can't wait to see how it goes!