Cycles of Relational Violence: Bullying and Beyond

There's simply no way to circumvent the truth: cycles of relational violence are perplex entanglements. There is no easy explanation as to why they exist, there is no easy explanation as to what sustains them, and there is no easy process to fix them.

Why?

Because cycles of relational violence are moving targets, with many moving parts, that include many influencing factors and many contributing components, which result in infinite permutations (of cycles of relational violence).

Needless to say, with this in mind, it's incredibly challenging to apply abstractions about cycles of relational violence, to real scenarios.

Nevertheless, here are some things to consider:

I. Cycles of relational violence perpetuate when there is an abuser and a target... or a bully and a target. When there are no abusers -- there are no targets. When there are no targets -- there are no abusers. Cycles must have two participants. 

For example: abusive family members perpetuate cycles of relational violence, within abusive families, whereby family members often swap roles, within the same family. But... within non-abusive families, there are no abusers nor targets. Hence, non-abusive families do not perpetuate cycles of violence.

In our society, there are two camps: supporters of abusers (and bullys) and supporters of targets (and victims). While approaches that derive from such perspectives, do yield some utility, some of the time... such approaches are not always beneficial, appropriate, or applicable, all the time. Instead, the corollary to the simple fact, that cycles of relational violence require two participants, is the following: cycles of relational violence can, at the very least, be altered, if not halted altogether, if and when, either participant changes their own behavior.

Moreover, while better case scenarios, involve abusers who lead such changes -- the value of this perspective lies within its underlying assumption that targets can be change agents.

NB: this should not be confused with victim blaming or victim shaming. In no way whatsoever do I (nor anyone of sound mind) condone victim blaming or victim shaming.

Rather, targets benefit from encouragement and support to explore their range of social, emotional, and behavioral options... that may, at the very least, ameliorate their experiences of abuse, if not eliminate them altogether.

II. Cycles of relational violence are sustained when both abusers and targets... get something from these relationships... toxic, though these relational interactions, may be. 

Consider: if this problem is so pervasive and so endemic... why aren't all of us... abusers and targets? Because, regardless of how inexplicable it may be, for us, as bystanders, to appreciate what is gained by cycles of relational violence, participants gain something, from these relationships.  

It may be as simple as: (1) any attention, including abuse or an audience for abuse, is preferred to the absence of attention, for an attention-seeking target or attention-seeking abuser; or as complex as (2) provoking an abuser or persecuting a target, satisfies an impulse to exert power and/or control over an abuser or a target; etc.

Although media tends to portray ideal relationships as idyllic, real relationships are rarely so simple. Instead, our inclination to maintain relationships that meet our needs to a varying degree, vary in degree, by our inclination... among a host of other influencing factors and contributing components.

Hopefully, for most of us, our real relationships are approximately 80 - 20 positive - negative. But... others... especially those with specific influencing factors and specific contributing components, may tolerate relationships akin to 20 - 80 positive - negative... within which, they experience cycles of relational violence.

Moreover, it's not up to us, as bystanders, to decide whether or not the relationships of others, are worthwhile. Instead, it's up to us, as bystanders to support each other, to make autonomous decisions.

III. Cycles of relational violence can be fixed, temporarily, by various overt extrinsic interventions. But... this approach does little to equip abusers and targets with the cognitive, behavioral, and emotional capacity, to desist from or resist, future cycles of relational violence, within other settings with others. 

Rather, insofar as eliminating cycles of relational violence, is our ultimate goal, we must acknowledge that both abusers and targets, benefit from encouragement, support, and concrete capacity building, with regard to fostering positive and empowering, cognitive, behavioral, and emotional strategies for sustaining mutually healthy relationships. 

Justifying disproportionately draconian retribution for abusers, on the one hand, while bestowing dubiously beneficent succor for targets, on the other... is not an ideal solution to the problem of cycles of relational violence.

Why not?

Because a target in one situation, may be an abuser in another... an abuser in one situation, may be a target in another... for what generates the roles appropriated by participants in one cycle of relational violence, may generate a role reversal in another cycle of relational violence.

If eliminating cycles of relational violence, is our ultimate goal, then the solution must include both abusers and targets, for these roles are often, two sides of the same coin.

Important Caveats

Of course... because cycles of relational violence are moving targets, with many moving parts, that include many influencing factors and many contributing components, which result in infinite permutations of cycles of relational violence... there are caveats to points I, II, and III, of which, the following, are illustrative, but not exhaustive:

• Some cycles of relational violence are so volatile, that points I, II, and III take a back seat, to SAFETY PLANNING. Too often, abusers, targets, and bystanders, dismiss concerns of safety, until relational violence escalates to serious and/or fatal harm.

• When influencing factors or contributing components include SUBSTANCE USE disorders or mental health diagnoses, then points I, II, and III take a back seat, to treatment. Substance use disorders and mental health diagnoses, are substantially ameliorable, through treatment -- notwithstanding, that effective treatments for both, often indirectly address point III.

• When either the abuser or the target is a child, then points I, II, and III take a back seat, to assessing the child's risk for self-harm, harm to others, and harm by a caregiver. Needless to say, if a child is found not to be at risk for imminent self-harm, harm to others, or harm by a caregiver -- recommendations pursuant to such assessments may and/or may not benefit children and caregivers, especially with regards to the flexibility of system wide policies and/or procedural guidelines.

• Point II may be NON-APPLICABLE to individuals with specific physical disabilities or deficits, specific cognitive disabilities or deficits, specific mental health diagnoses, specific substance use disorders, and/or specific children.

• Cycles of relational violence often occur among those whose status and/or power, differ, i.e. social, financial, positional, legal, etc. Often, these imbalances of power, lend a mistaken aura of powerlessness and helplessness, to such cycles of relational violence. However, this hurdle is not always insurmountable. Otherwise... very few targets would escape cycles of relational violence... and we know that this is simply not so.

Final Thoughts

It's seductive to seek an easy fix to cycles of relational violence... from zero tolerance policies towards bullying within schools... to strong arm court orders of protection and restraint...

But quick fixes rarely destroy the underlying framework, upon which, cycles of relational violence, thrive and perpetuate. Until we're willing to face the complexity of such relationships... we, as bystanders, will continue to remain ill-equipped to support each other... in pursuit of mutually healthy relationships.

More

After watching the documentary Bully (viewable for a limited time on PBS)... I felt inspired to blog about bullying... however, bullying, imo, exists within a broader social context... than children within our public school system.

For bullying isn't an isolated phenomenon. Nor is it isolated to educational institutions for children. Rather, it's one of many forms of relational violence, endemic to human societies.

Thus... devising strategies to combat bullying, with campaigns that seek to explain why it exists, what sustains it, and how to fix it, are often mired in specificity.

Why?

Because we examine certain types of relational violence, like bullying, with a focus that zeros in on details. Instead, if we examine relational violence -- with nonspecificity -- we invite ourselves to seek solutions that are inexplicably invisible, otherwise.

In fact, even when strategies to combat bullying borrow from the framework for combating the poster child of relational violence, viz. domestic violence, the issue of specificity still persists. Because, as with bullying, domestic violence, and other forms of relational violence, when we split ourselves into camps (i.e. supporters of perpetrators of violence versus supporters of victims), we invariably do so, on the grounds of specifics.

Hence, my use of less specific -- cycles of relational violence -- as well as less specific -- abusers and targets -- was intentionally distancing... from the vociferously contested battleground of disputable personal details, account details, and historical details... that often plague our social conversations and ongoing dialogue, about bullying, hazing, domestic violence, and other forms of relational violence.

As for, what to do, if you or someone you know, is an abuser or a target, within a cycle of relational violence, there is so much information and so many resources, readily available on the Internet and elsewhere. In the end, breaking free from a cycle of violence is well worth exploring many options. Moreover, no one site nor one strategy, will be universally, as beneficial, appropriate, or applicable, across every possible real life scenario, for every abuser or target.

However... if you are a bystander... then let's encourage and support each other's autonomy, first and foremost, by fostering mutually healthy relationships, ourselves, and avoiding that which does little to ameliorate anyone's real experiences of relational violence, much less, halt cycles of relational violence, altogether.

Note

Here's an article from Psychology Today that addresses our social and political dialogue about bullying and suicide in schools. Included, is a link to this article, that presents a concrete strategy that targets of bullying (as well as abusers), can adopt, to become change agents (see point I, above), within a cycle of relational violence.

Bear in mind that nuance is vital with regards to proceeding with care, with regards to implementing this or any strategy to address cycles of relational violence.

However, with respect to healing cycles of relational violence, much of the resources linked via the the article above, are steps along a path towards harmony for targets and abusers.

Disclaimer: 

The opinions presented herewith are (i) solely my own, (ii) solely for entertainment purposes, and (iii) not a substitute for the advice and recommendations of a professional. Nevertheless, the content presented herewith, derive from - direct and indirect - personal and professional - knowledge and experiences - on the topic at hand.

Hugs, M.

Appropriate, Inappropriate, & Why It Shouldn't Matter (With New Addendum 2016)

Is there a definition of appropriate dress, that exists beyond time and place?

Rather, if you consider, how we define appropriate dress today, it becomes readily apparent that dress is highly responsive to context (i.e. one religion vs another; one country vs another; one gender vs another; etc.).

Moreover, not only does appropriate dress differ by context, but the regulation of dress, overtly (i.e. dress code policy of a school, workplace, community, etc.) and otherwise (i.e. cultural norms perpetuated through social and peer influence), reflects differences in what is considered appropriate and/or inappropriate censorship of expression (personal, cultural, religious, political, and otherwise).

For example, is it appropriate for France to prohibit the wearing of face veils, in protest of gender role conscription of Muslim women among modern French women? Meanwhile, the dress of Amish women, which is regulated within Amish communities, also represents gender role conscription... yet no part of Amish dress is prohibited among non-Amish communities.

In the end, does it matter how we dress? At work? With friends? On a date? And is it ever appropriate to regulate our attire? At work? With friends? On a date?

Which begs the question... is it appropriate for schools in Utah to haphazardly photoshop yearbook photos in order to digitally modify the attire of young women, based on inconsistently applied dress code policies? Or... is it appropriate for companies to advise employees to adorn themselves less attractively or risk their jobs and their careers for failing to comply with misogynistically applied dress code policies (viz. dress codes that disproportionally apply to women, for example)?

When dress is deemed appropriate or inappropriate and subsequently censored... what messages do we communicate? For when dress codes are disproportionally devised by one group in order to subsequently disproportionally censor the dress of another group... (vis a vis any number of labels, i.e. gender, religion, ethnicity, national origin, socioeconomic status, marital status, sexual orientation, etc.)... are dress codes, overt and otherwise, truly innocuous?

More disturbing still... even when we don't explicitly regulate dress... we implicitly do.

Isn't this how we rationalize condemnation, blame, and the stiff price of noncompliance? Especially vis a vis women who are blamed for assault... not as perpetrators, but, as victims? How many people who deny victim blaming, openly discuss the relationship between a woman's attire and harm, as if the two are meaningfully correlated? As if assault is ever appropriate, in any way whatsoever, by virtue of a perpetrator's designation of a victim's dress as inappropriate.

Seriously?

Yet, men and women alike, succumb to this intractable stupidity. Why? Ostensibly, for (at least) two reasons: to mitigate our fears of personal harm and enforce social norms and expectations. For when we hold victims responsible for their victimization (per the failure to display appropriate rape-discouraging attire), we affirm our false sense of personal security via our superior and sanctimonious demonstration of normative conformity.

However, despite how entrenched this illogical belief persists within our dialog about appropriate and inappropriate dress... if people who do good and people who do harm are indiscriminately subjected to good experiences and harmful experiences, irregardless of divine justice and/or karma... by what sound reason is dress, ever a legitimate basis for determining whether or not a person deserves or doesn't deserve, to be harmed?

Along this vein, ridiculous personal safety measures, from anti rape clothing to anti rape nail polish, seek to redistribute the responsibility of preventing rape, upon the shoulders of its potential victims... within a cultural milieu that also perpetuates pervasive shame-inducing dress conformity, in order to ostensibly de-sexualize potential victims. Is this censorship any more appropriate than France's prohibition of face veils? Or the digital modifications to the attire of students in Utah?

Appropriate, inappropriate... does it matter?

In the end, our clothes neither make us victims nor perpetrators nor advocates nor condemners. It's our unremitting objectification, sexualization, and repulsive degradation of human beings (and frankly all kind), that generates the fertile social and moral foundation upon which perpetrators justify the suspension of empathy required to victimize another being and condemners justify the suspension of empathy required to shame another being.

Until anyone can wear anything at all or nothing at all, anywhere and everywhere... without verbal, physical, and sexual harassment and/or assault... we will continue to inexplicably fail to sustain the basic moral premise that every being, regardless of gender or attire, deserves to be treated with respect and dignity.

Addendum (2014)

This post is inspired by the press garnered by the invention of a date rape detecting nail polish. While intriguing and noteworthy... it invariably puts the emphasis and capital on the wrong end of the equation.

For date rape detecting nail polish will not decrease the incidence of rape, anywhere. Instead, decreasing the incidence of rape requires demonstrative concordance with affirmative consent and mutually respectful physical contact... because the terrible fact of the matter is that men and women rape women and men.

More on affirmative consent from The Huffington Post by Tyler Kingkade (September 8, 2014): Colleges Are Rewriting What Consent Means To Address Sexual Assault

What's ridiculous about protests of affirmative consent, is the assumption that affirmative consent is inherently impossible or difficult to gain, during normal consensual sexual interactions. Regardless of the fact that it is not... in reality, the reason for affirmative consent policies is not to require overt affirmative consent for every sexual act between consenting adults, but to protect men and women who cannot give consent because they are (1) unconscious, (2) asleep (or passed out), (3) in an altered state (i.e. the victim is under the influence of medication or illicit drugs, for example), (4) cognitively incapable of providing legal affirmative consent (i.e. a victim who possesses the functional intelligence of a child, for example), etc. In addition, affirmative consent policies also protect victims within relationships, for whom consensual sexual contact may occur without overt affirmative consent... alongside contested violence (sexual and otherwise).

However, aside from the issue of dress and overt sexual violence (i.e. rape and assault)... our cultural expectation that women who adorn themselves in a non-de-sexualized manner (i.e. anything other than a potato sack), should neither be surprised by the reactions of others nor hold others accountable for their reactions (i.e. prurient comments and lascivious gestures)... is irresponsibly inane. Why are women shamed and condemned for not wearing potato sacks, while reactors, actors, commenters, gesturers, etc. are not censured for objectifying, sexualizing, and/or repulsively degrading mothers, daughters, sisters...?!

Which begs the question... is our cultural expectation that women wear de-sexualized attire a slippery slope towards burkas for all women? Yet, even where burkas are common, sexual violence is still endemic.

More from The World Health Organization (2013): Global and Regional Estimates of Violence Against Women. (Although this report is lengthy, skip to page 18 for Figure 2: Global map showing regional prevalence rates of intimate partner violence by WHO regions (2010) and page 20 for Table 5: Lifetime prevalence of intimate partner violence (physical and/or sexual) or non-partner sexual violence or both among all women (15 years and older) by WHO region.)

WTFudge

Bafflingly genial acceptance of "boys will be boys" and "men will be men" theories of gender specific behaviors create nightmarish conditions for women around the world, i.e. India. More from Time by Per Liljas (June 13, 2014): With 4 Hangings in 2 Weeks, India’s Women Are Living in Fear.

Moreover, lest we minimize the unnervingly hostile and deeply inappropriate experiences to which women in so called civilized societies are routinely subjected... here's this, from The Journal by Mia Doering (October 6; year not noted): Making lewd remarks to women on the street is not ‘banter’. Not surprisingly, readers and listeners of Mia's experience from every gender camp, hardly extend her any sympathy... which only further illustrates how unquestioningly, blatantly pervasive bias is condoned, with respect to normative gender specific behaviors.

In addition, the issue of appropriate and inappropriate dress also includes the appropriate and/or inappropriate censorship of expression (personal, cultural, religious, political, and otherwise). For when we require dress conformity, regardless of context, we invariably perpetuate discomfiting social messages. To wit, unexamined cultural norms, influenced by misogyny, bigotry, xenophobia, and narrow minded myopia, habitually inform and guide explicit and implicit expectations of appropriate and inappropriate dress within our schools, workplaces, and communities (religious and otherwise).

Further Reading

While there are many articles featuring the recent development of an anti rape nail polish by four university students, this one comprehensively discusses why nail polish won't solve our rape problem: from The Telegraph by Claire Cohen (August 26, 2014): Anti-rape nail varnish? Pah. This just shows we still see sexual assault as a women's problem

More about the banning of face veils in France (starting with the results of its appeal): from The Telegraph by Rory Mulholland (July 1, 2014) European Court of Human Rights upholds French burka ban & from The Worldpost on The Huffington Post by Elizabeth Nicholas (December 18, 2013) France's Burqa Ban Gets New Scrutiny in European Court

Nevertheless, the wearing of burkas is, in and of itself, a contested topic within Muslim and Arabic communities. Here's an argument for banning it: from The Daily Mail by Dr. Taj Hargey (July 16, 2014): Why I, as a Muslim, am launching a campaign to ban the burka in Britain. (Note that Dr. Hargey espouses views that are characterized, by some, as polarizing and controversial.) Here's a brief tutorial on the various head coverings worn by women within Muslim and Arabic communities: from BBC (September 17, 2013): What's the difference between a hijab, niqab and burka?

While the WHO publication above (Global and Regional Estimates of Violence Against Women), is the most neutral, with regard to addressing the incidence of sexual violence towards women around the world... here are two, biased but interesting articles nonetheless, that reflect the stark reality that Islamic ideologies (viz. Sharia) on de-sexualized attire for women, do not prevent rapes and other forms of sexual violence towards women within Muslim and Arabic communities: from Europe News by Nicolai Sennels (February 5, 2010): Sexual abuse widespread among Muslims & from The Muslim Issue (July 11, 2013): Rigid Muslim socieites have the highest rape scales in the world – Study.

More than anything else, the fact that sexual violence occurs within societies that legally injunct and morally enforce de-sexualized clothing for women, illustrates that de-sexualizing women, especially via attire, does not minimize nor eliminate a woman's risk for sexual violence.

Of course, dictating the attire of men and women, within communities that circumscribe the roles of women, is not an isolated phenomenon of Muslim and Arabic communities. Hasidic Judaism is one other such community: from New York Post by Sara Stewart (February 7, 2012): I was a Hasidic Jew - but I broke free. More about Hasidic Judaism dress @ Wiki. Furthermore, even among communities that are less controversial for most Americans, explicit dress codes illustrate gender role conscription. Case in point: Amish dress codes from National Geographic (undated) Amish: Out of Order Facts and fundamentalist dress codes (nondenominational, although, ostensibly Christian) from unFundy.com (undated) Chapter 6: True Christians Are Not Part Of This World.

As for the high school students in Utah whose photos were digitally altered, I couldn't find an article that illustrated the purportedly inconsistent nature of these alterations. Nevertheless, here's an article that describes the bruhaha: from Fox News by Samantha Varvel (May 30, 2014) Utah high school 'learned lessons' after altering yearbook photos of girls.

In addition to the explicit and implicit designations of appropriate and inappropriate attire within communities (religious and otherwise) and schools... attire is also routinely regulated via workplace dress codes. Here's a brief list of what is legally permitted within workplace dress codes, from Lawyers.com (undated): Behavior Restrictions at Work. Whether you personally believe that workplaces should or should not retain the right to censor expression (personal, cultural, religious, political, and otherwise) via attire, here's a discussion of various legal protests of workplace dress codes, along with their legal outcomes: from Colorado Bar Association by Laura Hazen and Jenna Syrdahl (2010): Dress Codes and Appearance Policies: What Not to Wear to Work.

In addition, women who've attributed their workplace terminations to their attractiveness and/or purportedly provocative attire, have also publicized their protests of misogynistically applied dress code policies: from International Business Times by Industry Leaders Magazine (June 18, 2013) Hot & Fired. Being Too Sexy Can Be Too Much. In one such case, an Iowa court unbelievably upheld the right of a small business to fire a woman whose attractiveness apparently threatened the owner's marriage, from Outside the Beltway by James Joyner (December 22, 2012): Firing Workers For Being Too Sexy Approved By Iowa Supreme Court.

In sum:

When unexamined cultural norms, influenced by misogyny, bigotry, xenophobia, and narrow minded myopia, habitually inform and guide, explicit and implicit expectations of appropriate and inappropriate dress within our schools, our workplaces, and our communities (religious and otherwise)...

What exactly are we complicitly perpetuating?

- M.

Addendum (2016)

There are two myths that continue to run rampant, despite sound reason and good sense, that time and time again, intersect with our notions of appropriate and inappropriate dress.

Myth One: The only legitimate rape is when a large and/or burly man, burdened by sexual urges (due to the normal flux of hormones that propel the healthy sex drive of men, overwhelmingly toxic sexuality perpetuated by the propagandizement of lustful sin (aka Western or American media), and/or monstrous carnal appetite), physically overwhelms a woman unknown to him. Out of an abundance of modesty, this woman, wearing a potato sack that reveals nothing of her physical form, protests while vigorously protecting her chastity. The man proceeds to physically assault her until her resistance is abjectly nullified, whereupon, he satiates his bestial desires. All under the cover of night in a squalid alley in the bosom of a hotbed of profligate criminality.

Myth Two: Rape culture is a doctrine perpetuated by the misleading sex in order to satisfy their contrived modesty when they succumb to their shameless sexuality with a partner who should never be held accountable for enjoying the carnal knowledge of a whore, willingly or otherwise. Moreover, rape culture is also a doctrine perpetuated by the nefarious sex in order to satisfy their obscene vanity when a partner rejects their patently unacceptable offer of mutual courtship, in order to abide by the noblest of aphorisms: harlots are bedded (willingly or otherwise), not wedded.

That these myths, as well as countless others, continue to possess enormous traction today, is a testament to the united front of men and women, to ceaselessly perpetuate misanthropy the world over. (More from Wikipedia: Misanthropy. See also: The Scarlet Letter (1850), by Nathaniel Hawthorne. Note that many familiar with this work miss the point, with regards to morality and dignity within the stultifying milieu of myopia.)

Moreover, what else are women who propel idolatries of chastity and virtue that require, nay demand, so-called appropriate dress and abstinence at all costs, than equal opportunity misogynists? For these idolatries disproportionally objectify, sexualize, and degrade women. From Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (August 9, 2015): Sex Education (HBO).

Notwithstanding that women also objectify, sexualize, and repulsively degrade men, too. And, like men... women rationalize, justify, and legitimize this manifestly demeaning devaluation as vehemently too. From Elite Daily by Alexia LaFata (July 10, 2015): Why It's Completely Okay to Objectify Men... No, Really, It Is.

Consider this:

If objectification, sexualization, and degradation integrally scaffold rape culture -

and women and men rape men and women -

then -

doesn't sound reason and good sense lead to the realization that the least we can do to dismantle the integral scaffolding of rape culture in totum (not solely as it applies to one label or one group) - is to reject all objectification, all sexualization, all degradation - as unbefitting the dignity and respect due all beings - regardless of label (i.e. gender, religion, ethnicity, national origin, socioeconomic status, marital status, sexual orientation, etc.)?

For what are we really defending, when we're defending the unremitting objectification, sexualization, and repulsive degradation of any being?

That we persistently devise repugnant justifications to rationalize reprehensible harm against human beings (and frankly all kind), reflects our enduring willingness to legitimize recklessly immoral depravity, the world over.

Verily, labels possess no intrinsic power to deprive any being of their dignity and their respect. No more than any label possess intrinsic power to legitimize the degradation of any being. Thus, no one of us of us is to blame for our rampant rape culture -

all of us are to blame.

For there is no moral virtue in the deprivation of the dignity and the respect of any being - regardless of label or dress. Period.

Until -

Anyone can wear - anything at all or nothing at all - anywhere and everywhere - without verbal, physical, sexual harassment and/or assault - we will continue to endemically fail to sustain the sacrosanct premise that every being - regardless of gender or attire or profession or beliefs, etc. - possesses inviolable dignity - as beings.

- M.

More

When unexamined cultural norms, influenced by misogyny, bigotry, xenophobia, and narrow minded myopia, habitually inform and guide, explicit and implicit expectations of appropriate and inappropriate dress within your schools, your workplaces, and your communities (religious and otherwise)...

What exactly are you... complicitly perpetuating by legally injuncting and morally enforcing... appropriate and inappropriate dress... as defined and regulated by unexamined cultural norms, influenced by misogyny, bigotry, xenophobia, and narrow minded myopia?

Does your definition of appropriate and inappropriate dress... sustain the sacrosanct premise that every being... regardless of gender or attire or profession or beliefs, etc... possesses inviolable dignity?

Or -

Does your definition of appropriate and inappropriate dress... objectify, sexualize, and degrade... your self and other beings... based on gender, attire, profession, beliefs, (and/or any label for that matter, including religion, ethnicity, national origin, socioeconomic status, marital status, sexual orientation, etc.), etc...?

- M.

Disclaimer: 

The opinions presented herewith are (i) solely my own, (ii) solely for entertainment purposes, and (iii) not a substitute for the advice and recommendations of a professional. Nevertheless, the content presented herewith, derive from - direct and indirect - personal and professional - knowledge and experiences - on the topic at hand.

Hugs, M.

Post last updated April 2016.

A House of Cards: The Truths of Others

How much, do we really know, about the strangers that we meet online... or the people that we follow on social media... or the acquaintances of acquaintances that we discuss around the water cooler?

Surely, many, if not all of us, would concede that strangers are strangers... hence, unknown.

But what about the people that we encounter... face to face?

For how many of us assume that face to face interactions establish incontrovertible facts, about who we are... to one another? Yet... we are no more likely to know more about the people that we meet in the flesh, as... for example, countless public figures and celebrities, about whom we know little, with exactitude.

Indeed, most of us operate under the comfortable and often, erroneous, presumption that we are all, more or less, alike... which, not only populates confoundingly unreliable personality assessments, but also leads to unhesitatingly inaccurate behavioral attributions. For example, someone who is insensitive to prejudice, may fail to perceive prejudice in action... thereby absolving biased treatment of others, through intentional benedictions of blind ignorance. And, someone who is not malicious, may fail to recognize behaviors motivated by malice... thereby excusing disturbingly hostile behaviors, through sterile logic and reason. Finally, someone who is not generous, may fail to acknowledge the existence of unfettered generosity... thereby magnifying imaginary hidden agendas, lurking behind acts of genuine kindness.

Ultimately, we cannot use our selves to form the bases of the truths of others... for not only are some inner landscapes legitimately incoherent and unfathomable, but there is no law of human nature that demands congruence, between the truths of others and our own personal paradigms. Notwithstanding that an unfortunate dichotomy often exists between behavior that we condone, within ourselves, that we protest, within others. For example, many of us who negotiate our social world, vis a vis public guises... paradoxically expect transparency from others (especially during face to face encounters). And, many of us who engage in vacuous social niceties... paradoxically expect sincerity, in return.

How utterly dumbfounding... and humbling.

However, what is more unsettling, is the degree to which our overweening confidence in our perceptivity, renders us infallible with regard to conjecturing emotional or behavioral predictability, regarding those about whom we know little, if anything, with indisputable accuracy. For such confidence is rarely tempered against the truth: that predictive hypotheses are ex post facto conclusions, derived from retrospective and retroactive observations and analyses of known history, events, and behaviors, that may or may not be comprehensive, factual, or unequivocal. Moreover, insofar as there is no irrefutable law of human nature that requires all human thoughts, feelings, and behaviors to be comprehensible... the precision of such predictions is also limited by inner landscapes that may be impenetrable and/or inconceivable.

Which isn't to say that it's surprising that some truths of human psychology are mystifying... for all of us, have, at one time or another, discovered inexplicable personal realities, dwelling within our own authentic selves.

But... despite the fact that many of us employ expedient cognitive structures, in order to navigate an inconstant social milieu, including but not limited to reaching wildly unsubstantiated conclusions about everything and everyone, that we encounter online, on social media, around the water cooler, face to face, etc... such processes can and have lead to irreparable harm. For when carelessly flawed intuitions, perceptions, and judgment inform guidance of a professional or expert nature or influence systems of governance or authority... we recklessly collude with one other, to build a house of cards, on a foundation of disintegrating sand.

Addendum:

Inasmuch as this blog is a platform for my personal opinions, it is redundant to include an explicit disclaimer that states such, after every post. However, in the interests of utmost clarity:

The opinions presented herewith are (i) solely my own, (ii) solely for entertainment purposes, and (iii) not written with any express intention to influence the actions of others. Moreover, while the content presented herewith, derive from numerous - direct and indirect - personal and professional - contexts and experiences - any facsimile to any specific person(s) or event(s) is coincidental.

Nevertheless, it is as tempting to jump to conclusions about me and this post... as it is to jump to conclusions about everything and everyone. However, every time that we legitimize such egregious errors of arrogance, in lieu of rigorous precision, we jeopardize our ability to see truths. For, regardless of how often such erroneous missteps lead to remediable misunderstandings, such missteps also lead towards perilous and tragic outcomes.

Unlike cartoon villains... those who flagrantly disregard social contracts with our society, reside within our midst, wearing nothing more sinister than harmless public facades. Lest we fail to acknowledge the unsettling reality of human aberrance... unsuspicious guises can and do camouflage abnormal and/or pathological inner landscapes.

Case in point... here are but two documentaries that expose disturbingly unremarkable, and at times, amenable, public countenances that masked perturbing psychopathologies:

• Dear Zachary (2008): official website & on IMDb (currently viewable on Netflix)
• Talhotblond (2009): on IMDb (currently viewable on Netflix)

Alternatively... those who flagrantly disregard social contracts with our society, wear many facades... including masks of righteousness that legitimize tyranny with zealous vehemence:

• The Reign of -Isms: Having Label Cake and Eating It Too and Greatness Worth Striving For (more The Chip Aisle: Index)

- M.

Marching to a Different Drum: Beyond Fans, Followers, & Fame

Do you like me?

Isn't that why anyone participates in social media? To like and be liked?

But doesn't this assumption, beg the question: what about champion curlers or antique stamp enthusiasts or lawyers? We certainly don't assume that they've chosen such sports, hobbies, or professions... to like and be liked... do we?

So why do we diligently reduce the discussion of social media as a platform to share content of a personal nature, as a hobby or as a profession... to little more than diatribes on personal vanity, narcissism, self absorption, conceit, and so on, and so forth?

Moreover, aren't op/eds... in so far as they disclose the thoughts and opinions of a publication's editors and/or readers... content of a personal nature? Yet... generally speaking, op/eds are more likely to judged on the quality of the reasoning within - than on the repugnant use of a public forum to engage in trivial discourse.

Aren't amateur comedy hours... in so far as they feature unique, individual perspectives on life and relationships... also, content of a personal nature? Yet... generally speaking, comedic performances are more likely to be judged on the quality of the humor employed - than on the despicable use of a public forum for overweening self-promotion.

In fact, isn't social media merely a vehicle for doing what many of us do, in real life, anyway?

To wit... we divulge what we wear, to people who simply ask, from family to friends to coworkers to strangers... we routinely declare our unsolicited opinions on movies, products, gym memberships, etc. with strangers, coworkers, friends, etc.... and we're as likely to reveal intimate particulars about our lives to strangers, as we are to close friends, when we celebrate private milestones, publicly, i.e. birthdays, graduations, weddings, etc.

Furthermore... friends may plead for restaurant recommendations... coworkers may entice us with benign banter, regarding news or gossip... and cashiers, observing that we've straggled into a drugstore, at an ungodly hour, to procure newborn baby supplies, may inquire about our bundles of joy.

How many of us, would view these examples of innocuous invitations to engage in social fellowship, as unabashedly gauche attempts to like or be liked? For, of course, even the least social among us, have willingly reciprocated with congenial small talk, within many situations, such as those enumerated above.

Therefore, why are these invitations and interactions, irl, brushed aside with harmless equanimity... but invitations and interactions within social media, as a whole, are scrutinized with intense suspicion and skepticism? Perhaps... we should be more distrusting with everyone... and disregard social courtesies irl, not unlike our comportment de rigueur, online?

Regardless, there's certainly more to why social media is the juggernaut that it is today, than the desire to like or be liked. For, I for one... am not on social media, to like or be liked, to thereby acquire fans or followers or fame. Rather, I'm on social media, because I sincerely believe that my contributions are worth more than my silence, within a dialogue, vastly greater than I could possibly entertain, otherwise.

In the end, why is my desire to say something, on the blackboard of the information superhighway, irrefutable evidence of... egomania?

Thank goodness, I'm not a revolutionary...

because I'd be hanging from the rafters, with me, myself, and I.

Addendum:

Above is my first update from bloglovin... which I joined, after the desire to update the antiquated description of one of my blogiverse blogs, outweighed my intrinsic dubiety of a "blog feed service" that required my membership, in order to update information that was accessible, without my membership.

In any case, this update served as a jarring reminder that the point of blogging, was to acquire likes, fans, followers, and fame. After which, it occurred to me that following a formula for modern popularity, inexplicable though it seemed, would invariably entail regurgitating popular memes already in circulation (i.e. sex or cats, although, preferably, not together). But, upon consideration... the thought of cheerfully swimming in a cesspool of pointless offal, endlessly perpetuated vis a vis social media, was eminently less appealing than scrubbing a public toilet with a toothbrush.

Nevertheless, the entire social media megaverse cannot be lumped together, as a homogeneous mass of disingenuity or insignificance. Nor can everyone on social media, be lumped together, as a homogeneous population of vapid self promoters or malicious trolls.

However, there is a conspicuous predisposition with regard to our discourse on why social media is what it is, to comment on the worst attributes of social media and the worst social media conversationalists... such that I've relentlessly challenged my own decision to participate in any form of social media.

But social media isn't populated by reality stars and attention junkies, posting noxious garbage, ad nauseum. Rather, social media is populated by us. Believe it or not, reality stars and attention junkies... are us, too... but for happenstance, wherewithal, and intention. Besides, the social media world is vast and populated by far more than reality stars and attention junkies. However, many non-reality stars and non-attention junkies, seem inordinately fixated on such invented personalities, nonetheless.

Still... regardless of the feculance that does pollute the digital landscape, no one forcibly compels any of us, to digest it... no more than no one forcibly compels any of us to digest anything available for consumption, from ideas to pastries to train wrecks.

As for me... perhaps it's hubris... or optimistic idealism... or implacable resistance to the opinions of everyone else... or all of the above... or none of the above.

In the end, do you care?

In fact, doesn't a person's presence on social media endow categorical permission to judge and be judged... those who apparently strive to like and be liked? Thus, isn't this the rationale that lies unchallenged, in favor of broad sweeping generalizations regarding the sheer meaninglessness of a platform that is, no more and no less than a means for doing what we do, with or without social media, anyway? Indeed, the real world itself, is no more and no less meaningful than the digital world of social media, where we merely replicate that which we do, irl, i.e. judge and be judged, like and be liked.

For, ultimately... the social media world is our world... to embrace or detest... to attend or ignore... to uplift or deface... as we see fit.

More/further reading:

What inspired this post, was this episode of Frontline: Generation Like (aired Feburary 18, 2014).

Despite the fact that Frontline's Generation Like is a disappointingly shallow treatment of the subject matter, this treatment of social media, as a whole, is common and predictable.

Alternatively, the social media universe is also home to the open education resource movement (more here at Wiki), arguably one of the most laudable agendas for social media utilization.

However, despite the admirable aspirations of OERM advocates, open education resources are not without drawbacks... notably with regard to the limitations of self directed learning, at the individual level (e.g. sustaining the commitment required to complete a free online course, with less social interaction than a traditional institutional setting), as well as financial implications, at the corporate level (including concerns by various institutions, as to whether or not free education, erodes their financial viability vis a vis the concern that consumers won't pay for what they can acquire, for free).

Nevertheless, these drawbacks don't diminish the extraordinary value of free education resources from bright minds, around the world... uniquely possible and eminently accessible, by virtue of, gasp, social media.

Developmental Hiccups in the Search for Normal (With New Addendum 2016)

On my rounds around the Internet, I'm often dumbfounded by the volume of uninformed and careless responses to weighty, significant concerns, like these:

"Is my child developing normally? Should I get my child evaluated for early intervention?"

Why am I so passionate about this topic?

Because we're far too willing to mindlessly reject differences in children as aberrant deviations to be "fixed". Moreover, we're bullied by "experts" into embracing early childhood interventions as curealls for children who defy their peers, by developing at a pace beyond the "normal" swell of the bell curve. A distance that parents, care providers, and educators find so egregious and uncomfortable, that this discomfort drives relentless self-righteous advocacy. In so doing, we trivialize the persistent use of harmful labeling, inherent to the implementation of early childhood intervention services, whose efficacy is rarely potently challenged, despite circumscription by numerous irrelevant and inappropriate forces, including policy makers, bean counters, and zealous "champions".

However, when we describe the wide variances of aptitudes within adults, we rarely identify such differences as horrifying evidence of developmental deficits. For example, my inability to retain the volume of trivia and knowledge possessed by my husband, is hardly a debilitating cognitive lack. Moreover, I would never seek specialized interventions to facilitate progression within this cognitive domain. Rather, I accept that our cognitive differences are simply differences. So, why do such variances reflect individual differences in adulthood, while similar variances in early childhood, infer alarmingly critical deviations from normal?

Because we've been inundated with misinformation. Because most individuals who have an opinion on the topic - professional or otherwise - have an opinion - the basis of which is not the unbiased and comprehensive knowledge of the entire breadth of peer-reviewed, empirically-based literature and research on early childhood development, assessment, and intervention. Moreover, appropriate qualifiers and disclaimers are seldom judiciously balanced against such opinions.

Motherhood Under a Microscope

The most heartwrenching insecurity and subsequent rally for early childhood intervention, often stem from mothers, intent on validating their mothering. For the only extrinsic validation for motherhood accessible to mothers, is our children. Furthermore, whenever we share our children with society at large, we expose ourselves to the judging scrutiny of other mothers. Mothers. Not experts on child development. Moreover, some women brandish their perceived expertise as badges of honor, readily doling advice in the wake of implied extraordinary parenting. From whence do such women derive their enviable competence? Unsubstantiated platitudes opined by educators, care providers, and pediatricians as to the exceptional development possessed by their children.

Needless to say, I'm not a mother who looks pityingly upon children who are crawling, when they are two. Or hiding behind their mothers, when they are three. Or silent with strangers, when they are four. Rather, the behavioral traits of most significance to me, are: flexibility, adaptability, emotional regulation, tolerance, fortitude, sensitivity, social awareness, empathy, and joy. Not surprisingly, these are behavioral competencies that are woefully lacking in too many children deemed otherwise "normal".

Is it vitally important that Johnny and Susan were potty trained at twelve months? That Johnny and Susan spoke four languages fluently at the age of two? That Johnny and Susan did a 2,000 piece jigsaw puzzle and read War and Peace, at the age of three? Nevertheless... while such accomplishments are encouraged, validated, and rewarded within our society, i.e. as entrance criteria for exceptional pre-school programs, we'll continue to devalue "soft" behavioral traits essential for healthy child development.

Expressive Speech Development

One of the developmental milestones that mothers intent on raising a developmentally exceptional child, inordinately scrutinize, is expressive or spoken language. But the most ridiculous scenario for questions of developmental speech aptitude, is usually some variant of the following: a child isn't expressing as loquaciously as his peers, while his parents fail to disclose that they speak four languages at home. Needless to say, while most children learn one word for apple, this child is expected to learn four. Multiply that by the hundreds, if not thousands, of words children hear within the first few years of life. Add to that, a receptive, thoughtful, or introverted temperament. It is unlikely that this particular child will blossom into a babbling orator by two years of age. Even though the status of this child's expressive language acquisition may be a deviation from "normal", as laypersons define it, this rate of development is not alarming given the nuanced context of this child's early language experiences.

What is the benefit of labeling such children as speech delayed, when they simply reside beyond the "normal" swell of a bell curve determined by societal norms and expectations of early expressive language development? Rather, parental insistence on multi-lingual aptitude, based on the misapplication of early childhood adaptability to multi-lingual fluency, is what's egregious. While brain elasticity is certainly notable in early childhood, it's not uncommon for any child, much less children within multi-lingual families, to learn expressive or spoken language slower than other children, including children within mono-lingual families... because expressive language development varies widely, normally.

Notwithstanding the sheer reality of speech therapy for early childhood intervention: speech "therapy" for infants, toddlers, and young children is primarily play, focused on the acquisition of language. How is this different than parenting, focused on the specific needs of a child? Unless you're a parent, incapable of or unwilling to, provide enriching environmental, cognitive, and emotional experiences for your child, speech therapy under these circumstances, is simply a ticket for admittance to the club of parents with children with special needs. Moreover, it's a way to label a child's difference, as a deficit, rather than accept it, as a variant of normal.

To Assess or To Not Assess

Aside from fears of speech aptitude, the most common anxiety of parents who've been subjected to the mass hysteria of media presentations of developmental disabilities, is determining whether or not their child should be assessed for an early childhood developmental disability, especially autism. Cursory exposure to developmental disabilities - via friends, relatives, co-workers, media, etc. - encourages parents to believe that they're depriving their child, if their child doesn't receive early childhood intervention, when their child fails to comply and/or conform with an arbitrary and restrictive definition of "normal" development.

Here's the truth about early childhood development: wide variance is normal. Moreover, there's no definitive test for developmental disabilities. There are a variety of assessment tools that can be applied, in combination with an interview with the parent(s) and the child, to make a clinical determination of the presence of behaviors or traits consistent with the diagnosis of a developmental disability. In other words, a developmental disability is not a disease in the traditional biomedical sense. Rather, the determination of a developmental disability is primarily based on a parent's report of or child's display of social, emotional, behavioral, and/or cognitive variations from a child's peer group. As such, there's a lot of room for professionals to label children, based on very grey areas... not to mention the undue influence of parents, caregivers, and educators, intent on "qualifying" a child for treatment to be implemented by anyone other than themselves.

Hence, it is absolutely critical that any recommendation to assess, is a well-informed one. While, the professional performing the assessment, is appropriately and sufficiently qualified to perform such an assessment. These are often not pediatricians, special education teachers, or other self-identified "experts" on early childhood development. Rather, the diagnosis of early childhood social, emotional, behavioral, and cognitive disabilities is the domain of mental health professionals with specialized knowledge and training. Furthermore, if a child is labelled with a developmental disability, it is also absolutely critical that any individual providing treatment is appropriately and sufficiently qualified to administer effective and appropriate interventions.

Conclusion

The decision to assess a child's development for the presence of a disability is a weighty one. While forums and message boards are wonderful venues for support and sympathy, they are often populated by individuals who do not possess the knowledge, experience, and training necessary to provide expert advice for a child that they, themselves, have not personally witnessed or assessed. Moreover, the risk of misunderstanding is significant, when these conversations do not occur in person, as parents may inadvertently or advertently filter their disclosures in order to maintain a confirmation bias from listeners (intentionally and otherwise).

While in the end, the decision to submit one's child for a developmental assessment is a parental one, caution is wise. As a quick fix society, it is incredibly tempting to pawn our children onto professionals for assessments and subsequent interventions. However, such actions do not "fix" children. More often, such assessments lead to interventions that amount to little more than "focused attention". Among parents who lack the wherewithal, resources, and capacity to provide this level of intentional parenting, such services are invaluable. However, among parents who do possess the wherewithal, resources, and capacity to provide intentional parenting, professional intervention may do more harm (in the long run) than good. (For the label of disabled is unequivocally deleterious to human dignity. Is it not? Else why aren't all of us labelled disabled?)

Ultimately, we as parents, need to encourage each other to resist societal pressure to observe differences in our children, as aberrant deviations to be labelled and thus stigmatized. Instead, we need to encourage each other to recognize the inherently vast variances in child development as perfectly, uniquely, beautifully normal.

Addendum I (2014)

Obviously, there are circumstances in which developmental assessments and interventions are strongly advised by professionals who have observed deficits of note in children. And while such recommendations may be appropriate, it is always important to proceed with caution, due diligence, and careful consideration. Assessments and interventions are not always appropriate for every child who is demonstrating "deficits". Moreover not every child who receives assessments and interventions, benefit from interventions that are accessible via typical avenues (i.e. school systems, mental health systems, social service systems, etc.). For research has consistently demonstrated, that children along the autism spectrum (for example), do not all benefit from early interventions, as they're presently administered, studied, and funded.

There's also something to be said about the methods by which children are successful, as most interventions deemed empirically successful, include behavioral components. Why is this significant? Because behaviorally based interventions often fail to acknowledge the dignity, autonomy, and temperament of children - as such considerations are often disregarded, in favor of successfully modifying target behaviors. Why? Because these interventions are often designed and implemented by individuals without a thorough understanding of the psychological implications, ramifications, and consequences of applied behavioral interventions.

Moreover, non-behavioral interventions deemed successful for children labelled with developmental disabilities, often co-occur with expected progressions of development, in which it is often impossible to empirically differentiate the degree to which interventions are responsible for acceleration of progression. In other words, it's possible that some children who progress, do so as a consequence of their naturally varying progression, rather than as a consequence of early childhood interventions. This is especially likely among children who receive speech, physical, and occupational therapies as infants, toddlers, and young children.

In any case... while this addendum reflects my healthy skepticism of early childhood assessment and intervention... it is certainly true that children appropriately assessed and awarded the remarkable benefit of appropriate treatment, often significantly benefit from such interventions. However, it's not been my experience that such experiences are the norm. Rather, "professionals" defend their competence, regardless of the simple fact that no one is omniscient, omnipotent, or infallible; while many children receive mediocre treatment administered by inadequately trained pseudo-"professionals".

Meanwhile, the behavioral competencies of - flexibility, adaptability, emotional regulation, tolerance, fortitude, sensitivity, social awareness, empathy, and joy - continue to remain lacking in children - and adults for that matter - deemed otherwise "normal". Which merely makes one wonder - what kind of society are we - that we provide early childhoold interventions to children who aren't fluent linguists at two years of age - but we do nothing to facilitate the acquisition of behavioral competencies, so vital to the social, behavioral, and emotional development of children? These skills are not acquired through osmosis; however my point is not to advocate early interventions with such intentional skill acquisition in mind. My point is simply, that acquisition targets of early childhood interventions, are societally, politically, and culturally determined and thus, inherently limited by the fog of our temporal myopism. For... a thousand years into the future... human societies will surely agree... that our "modern" age is a barbaric one.

- M.

Addendum II (2016)

Should all young children by screened for Autism? on CNN (2/16/16)

It is interesting to note that the groups advocating most strongly for universal assessment for autism, are medical associations, i.e. of pediatricians, and special interest advocates, i.e. of autism... neither of which are composed of individuals whose ostensible purview include directly assessing, diagnosing, or treating early childhood social, emotional, behavioral, and cognitive disabilities. Rather the ostensible purview of both groups, is professional, not clinical.

It is important to iterate that the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of early childhood social, emotional, behavioral, and cognitive disabilities is the domain of mental health professionals with specialized knowledge and training. A mental health background alone does not constitute specialized knowledge and training on the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of early childhood social, emotional, behavioral, and cognitive disabilities. Notwithstanding that pundits, no matter how exhaustively degreed and credentialed, rarely possess the knowledge of the entire breadth of peer-reviewed, empirically-based literature and research on early childhood development, assessment, and intervention.

Alternatively, advocacy of early assessment for specific populations, i.e. cultural populations, ethnic populations, religious populations, national populations, socioeconomic populations, etc., concurrently facilitates appropriate assessment and treatment within "specific" populations that may or may not be "at risk"... and exploits these same populations, who may or may not lack the knowledge and/or resources to make fully informed mental health decisions and/or advocate on behalf of their dependents.

(Case in point: how often are cultural populations, ethnic populations, religious populations, national populations, socioeconomic populations, etc... much less, any population, permitted to question, contest, or defy the recommendations of experts and/or professionals... pursuant to patient advocacy? To assume that every well meaning expert and/or professional is omniscient, omnipotent, and infallible, especially with regards to advising families within so-called "at risk" populations... and to likewise assume that no population, much less "at risk" populations, is vulnerable to surrendering autonomy in the face of abject manipulation, coercion, and intimidation by experts and/or professionals... is simply naive.)

Likewise, the potential harm of disability labeling, inherent to the implementation of early childhood intervention services, as they're presently administered, studied, and funded, and the persistently inadequate examination of the efficacy of early childhood intervention services, as they're presently administered, studied, and funded, cannot be dismissed by the simple aphorisms: "there's no harm in testing; testing is good; there's no harm in interventions; interventions are good; there's no harm in labeling; labeling is good".

When we neglect to remember that acquisition targets of social, emotional, behavioral, and cognitive interventions (as determined by insurers, school systems, social service systems, mental health systems, etc.), are financially, societally, politically, culturally, and temporally determined and thus, inherently conscribed by the fog of our financial, societal, political, cultural, and temporal myopism... we neglect to remember that we define that which "unequivocally" indicate social, emotional, behavioral, and cognitive disabilities, such that... not only do, have, and will these "unequivocal" behaviors differ across peoples (i.e. cultures, nations, religions, genders, etc.)... these "unequivocal" behaviors also do, have, and will differ across time. Indeed... a thousand years into the future... we will surely agree that this age is an aphotic one.

In the end, when we resist societal pressure to observe differences in our children and our selves, as aberrant deviations to be labelled and thus stigmatized... we give our selves and our children the greatest gift of all... the permission to be wonderfully human.

More

More about the context that informs our societal norms and expectations and scientific norms and expectations of 'normality' and 'deviation': How the Idea of a 'Normal' Person Got Invented from Atlantic (2/2016)

Disclaimer: 

The opinions presented herewith are (i) solely my own, (ii) solely for entertainment purposes, and (iii) not a substitute for the advice and recommendations of a professional. Nevertheless, the content presented herewith, derive from - direct and indirect - personal and professional - knowledge and experiences - on the topic at hand.

Hugs, M.

Post last updated February 2016.