The ideals Western society has on being physically attractive and thin has set great pressure on people these days that have caused the sky-rocketing amount of people with eating disorders. A study at a public university in Georgia was done in order to determine whether psychologically flexible response styles contribute to the link between disordered-eating cognitions and poor psychological outcomes. To replicate the city's diversity the study was done on both male and female college students coming from different racial backgrounds and ranging from 17-49 years of age.

According to the article psychological flexibility is “the ability to contact the present moment fully as a conscious human being, and to change or persist in behavior when doing so serves valued ends.” Psychological flexibility allows a person to see "negative" thoughts and feelings as mental events, that they know will not affect them whatsoever. So if a person has low psychological flexibility she will not be able to grasp this concept and instead of perceiving "negative" thoughts as mental events she will take these thoughts as her reality and will end up accepting them causing either depression or anxiety. For example, a person with low psychological flexibility who thinks they are overweight will most likely isolate themselves from social events, such as football games and prom, because their thoughts and feelings have taken over themselves. They cannot overcome them and see them as just a problem they have in their heads. These kinds of actions usually lead to social isolation which eventually follows depression. A strong body of evidence also shows that low psychological flexibility is associated with many psychological problems, which include depression, anxiety, self-harm, and substance use problems.

On the other hand, those with high psychological flexibility have better ways of coping with their feelings. Instead of fixating themselves with petty thoughts, like "I'm overweight" or “people don't like me because I'm not physically attractive", they set these thoughts into a mental event category where these thoughts won’t bother them. They live a more optimistic life where they can move on past "negative" mental thoughts and worry about more important things.

The study used four different measures to assess disordered eating-related cognitions, poor general psychological health, personal distress in an interpersonal setting, and psychological flexibility. The first method was Mizes Anorectic Cognitions Questionnaire-Revised, or MAC-R for short, that was used to evaluate distorted cognitions related to eating disorders. The three cognitions included the fear of weight gain, importance of being thin and attractive to be accepted by society, and self-esteem resulting from managed eating habits and weight gains. The next method was the AAQ, Acceptance and Action Questionnaire, that measured psychological flexibility and how willing you were to accept undesirable thoughts and feelings. The scores ranged from 16 to 112, with the higher scores indicating higher psychological flexibility. The General Health Questionnaire, GHQ, measured general psychological health, while the Interpersonal Reactivity Index-personal distress, IRI-pd, measured anxiety and uneasiness during tense situations. The higher the score, the more a person was identified with anxiety and uneasiness.

The results of the study showed the gender did not show any correlation between disordered eating-related cognitions, psychological flexibility and negative psychological ill-health. What was found was that the way someone responds to negative psychological events is important to understanding and treating psychological problems, and that their post-thoughts about these events are by far more important than the actual events.

All studies come with flaws. This study showed that other variables, such as neuroticism and social perfectionism might have skewed the results for the experiment. Even so, the study brought lots of knowledge, such as the results of psychological flexibility, to the world of eating disorders. People now know that in order to live a better life it’s best to be optimistic and cope with negative feelings and emotions for flexibly.

Obama Said Chill, So Chill!

Obama's economic team is working to use dynamic stochastic general equilibrium... wait wait wait, an economic "team"? I would, along with most everyone else in the country, probably stop right about there. It’s not that we don’t under the word “team,” it’s just that there’s only so much Americans can handle hearing intellectually in one sentence. President Obama might have problems in finding the finality of a solid economic structure, but wouldn't you find it understandable considering the alternative is us not being able to pay attention?

Obama’s "economic team" at this point in time has found refuge in leaving the classic economic finer points of past eras in an attempt to boost the spirit of the depressed beast that is the economy of the United States. The multiple different strategies he is attempting are definitely new and ingenious to the government, but may also prove to be an archetype for administrations to come.

Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium, or DSGE for short, is an economic structure that is a branch of the general equilibrium theory which today’s politics consider to beincreasing influential in contemporary macroeconomics. Obama’s critics believe this a flawed system that assumes the economic world will stay perfect, when in reality it’s still depressing. The other main structure is econometric, which critics also have questions with because econometric maintenance is said not to hold in the face of great change. This claim, however, has not been well-tested and the result of a DSGE is still up for debate as to whether it is disastrous or favorable.

Although these two are in fact included somewhat in economic decisions, they are not at all his only two plans to use for the financial beast of the United States. That might be the reality, but due to slanted news articles and online opinion entries, the case is still and always will be ignorance and advice. This is where I find problems. Some new ideas on the brighter side seeing light include the introduction of agent-based modeling. Agent-based modeling is a computerized simulation of a number of decision-makers (agents), which interact through prescribed rules. The agents can be as diverse as needed — from consumers to policy-makers and Wall Street professionals — and the institutional structure can include everything from banks to the government.

When Obama ran for office I clearly remember one of the things he reinforced over and over again in his speeches was the idea that you can’t change an entire country by yourself with just one year, but in four years of presidency you would definitely see change. I’m not saying people should hold back critizing things about Obama if they want, but this time I want an honest consideration. We, as a great country, as the United States of America, need to make sure that we sympathize. Yes there are crises all over and yes we are in a depression, but we did elect him and we should try to stand behind him and see if he and his economic team can make something positive out of this negative.

It's all in the research

According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health in 2004, approximately 17 million people experienced depression. Comparatively in 2004, doctors diagnosed 1.37 million patients with cancer. Even with this being said, mental disorders rightfully take the back seat to medical disorders in research. Anyone who would disagree with this statement probably has had a direct experience with someone who suffered from a mental disorder. First-hand experience with any disorder can result in someone having a personal vendetta against that disorder. This results in people providing money for specific research, or even conducting research themselves. For those who have been personally affected, try to see an unbiased perception of the two types of disorders. When looking at these two areas of disorders and simultaneously leaving your emotions behind, medical research takes the lead.

Much to the dismay of an editorial in the journal Nature*, most medical disorders already receive more funding than mental disorders. Cancer and heart disease can receive approximately one hundred times more money than diseases such as Alzheimer’s in some fundraiser settings.

But this author still doesn't think that this is enough. The majority of any money raised does go to diseases like Alzheimer's which appear later on in life unlike depression or Schizophrenia which can occur throughout a person's entire life. Schizophrenia, however, only occurs in 1.1% of the United States population and is already treatable through medication.

Another thing to consider while dealing with these disorders is their fatality rates. The main cause of death from mental disorders is suicide, ranking up about 30,000 deaths a year. Meanwhile, heart disease kills about 630,000 and cancer kills about 560,000 annually. Heart disease alone kills about twenty-one times more people than suicide.

Medical disorders are also much easier to do research on since they are usually dealing with more quantitative details rather than qualitative. For example, if a patient has cancer, the doctors can directly, or indirectly through machines, examine the tumor. For a medical disorder, though, a patient would be asked a series of questions where they could answer whatever they decided was fitting. Mental research, in this regard, is less accurate since it is solely based on the thoughts and feelings of the individual. Results from medical disorder research is more clear since there is physical proof of the disorders and how they are being affected by attempted treatments.

This same issue with mental research occurs when dealing with the severity of a disorder. As for cancer, it is fairly common knowledge that the bigger a tumor, the worse you have cancer. This same principle cannot be applied to mental disorders. It is hard to classify one instance of the disorder as 'severe' while another as 'mild' since any symptoms can be exaggerated by the patient and therefore the results would be skewed. Even if a specific doctor discovered a way of qualifying the severity of a disorder, there would be no real way of transferring this exact system to other doctors since so much would be based on how affected the patient thought himself to be and how affected the doctor perceives the patient to be.

Yes, mental disorders can be very destructive and devestating, but when there is limited funding, more aspects must be considered. Money can be more effectively used when going towards medical research since medical disorders are easier to quantify and are much more prevelant. In any case, the point of trying to cure disorders is to try to maintain the human race and keep people alive, right? More people die from heart disease and cancer, so developing treatments for these instead of mental disorders could potentially save more lives. In the grand scheme of things, mental disorders really can take the back seat.

*A Decade for Psychiatric Disorders Nature 463, 9 (7 January 2010) | doi:10.1038/463009a; Published online 6 January 2010

Researchers vs Animal Activists

Hoax bombs, character assassination and property destruction. Such tactics have been the new violent trend animal rights activists have turned to in order to get their points across. While there is a clear understanding that an end to such harmful actions needs to occur, the solution should certainly not come from the government. Protesters and companies performing animal research need to establish common ground by peaceful negotiations so the beneficial role activists play in keeping animal testing companies in check can continue and thrive.

The steps to settle the battle between animal researchers and activists in Nature's editorial "Against Vicious Activism" has the government acting like a mediator for both parties. While the regulations it's enforcing cheer for better protection plans and coordination with US federal and state authorities to secure researchers, more violence will arise from the indirect communication between both parties. It is human nature to do what is forbidden, and for these extreme activists stricter laws and punishment that ban them from protesting will only lead them to think up of even more violent tactics that will have tremendous effects on the research world and its researchers. If these researchers don't personally step up and speak up about their problems nothing will resolve. The government needs to step back so animal researchers can make their own laws towards regulations and activism.

When has anything been settled with violence? Never. The extreme measures animal activists have been taking need to come to an end before anyone really gets hurt and bigger conflicts arise. The only way to do so is by having both the companies who use animals in their tests and animal rights activists sit down and speak directly to one another. Having a mediator, of any sort, only causes misunderstandings that lead no where. A peaceful agreement between both parties would hopefully bring an end to such extreme and unnecessary actions towards animal researchers, who in reality are just doing their job so humans can live care-free of viral or bacterial infections. The most ideal agreement would constitute of safer, improved approaches on animal research and clearer laws about animal protesting that would regulate the level of extremity taken by the activists.

Even though activists have gradually been taking more extreme measures to get their message through, these steps have actually helped keep companies in line towards their treatment and care of animals used in experiments. Without these people a lack of regulations for research animals and their use would exist. Through their actions laws such as the Animal Welfare Act have been passed, where the laboratory use of cats, dogs, and primates, guinea pigs, and rabbits are regulated. This act, plus the Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare that watches over non-human-vertebrates, has caused researchers to modify their laboratories in a manner that models a place where anyone could walk in at any time and see what's going on. With this kind of pressure researchers have taken safer measures with all the animals they use in their studies.

Only a balance between animal researchers and animal rights could secure the continuation of finding cures that society desperately needs, especially for cancer and AIDS. Only through the direct communication of these two parties could the accomplishment of such agreement take place. No mediators, no outside help, no governments are needed for them to settle their difference and come to a peaceful accord where they can discuss and lay down a set of laws and regulations. Violence is not the answer.