Counterintuitive Spring 2023

Social Trust is Essential to Delay Gratification

Preschoolers are remarkable for knowing when to “flex their muscles” as shown in the famous Marshmallow Study in the 1960’s where preschoolers had to decide whether to eat a marshmallow immediately, or wait fifteen minutes to get yet another marshmallow. In follow up studies, the four year olds who resisted eating the marshmallow were found to have increased SAT scores and lead healthier, more successful lives than their counterparts who lacked willpower. For years scientists believed that self control was a predetermined trait that remained stable throughout a lifetime, and that trait was evident as young as preschool age. In a counterargument, a 2012 Rochester study found the reason children lack self control is not because of lack of a unitary trait needed to succeed, but because of lack of trust in the outcome of waiting. In fact, there are many justified reasons for a child to gobble down the first marshmallow, and unfortunately those reasons could be linked with poverty and absent fathers. Recent studies have shown that children make rational choices depending on whether they live in reliable environments that encourages trust, or unreliable environments where trust is challenged on a regular basis.

The Marshmallow Study by Stanford Professor Walter Mischel demonstrated that when preschool children were able to delay gratification by waiting to eat a treat, they grew up to be more successful adults than those children who did not have that level of self control. In this study, done in the 1960’s, Mischel gave the children a treat (a marshmallow, a cookie, a pretzel) and told the children that if they could wait 15 minutes to eat it, they would get an extra treat. After following the children to adulthood, researchers discovered that those children who demonstrated self control were healthier, had more success, and better grades than those children who immediately ate the treat. Psychologists and social scientists realized that emotional intelligence and self control were more important to life success than IQ intelligence. Social scientists believed that self control was a unitary trait, evident as early as preschool. However, the children studied were a homogenous group, with none of the children coming from disadvantaged backgrounds. The children were exposed to reliable environments where they knew the adults conducting the experiment, and they had trust that the reward was forthcoming if they were patient enough to wait.

Self control is dependent on trust in receiving a future reward. A recent study by Celeste Kidd of the University of Rochester supports this argument. In her study, she found that trust and confidence in the results of waiting to receive the reward plays a significant role in a person’s ability to delay gratification. The children tested were able to make rational decisions on the probability of reward based on trust. Celeste Kidd was able to manipulate the degree of delayed gratification by introducing reliable and unreliable variables to their experiment. For example, the first group of children were given a box of crayons, and then stickers, and promised bigger boxes, but these boxes never came. This was the unreliable experience. The second group of children were promised the boxes and then received them. This was the reliable experience. Both groups of children were then offered the marshmallow test. The results of the study were conclusive and strong. Children who had trust in the outcome that they would receive their second treat waited four times longer – 12 minutes versus 3 minutes – than those children who were in unreliable situations. Clearly, children inherit different temperaments and show different behaviors from birth. This study demonstrates, however, that children can make rational decisions based on the environment, and that even the child with natural self restraint will eat the treat immediately if it appears unlikely that they will receive another one later. The children in the reliable environment learned that waiting for the treat works, and they had the ability to wait.

Children unlucky enough to be born into poverty, or with absent fathers, have been proven to be less successful in life because they lack the ability of delayed gratification. Simply put, these children live in unreliable environments.  They almost always chose to grab what they can immediately, and not postpone gratification in the hopes of getting more. This lack of self control leads to juvenile delinquency, poor performance in school, and lack of economic opportunities. The study done by University of Rochester professors challenge the inevitability of failure by this subset of children. The study indicates that the reason the children lack self control is not because of lack of unitary trait needed to succeed, but because of the lack of trust in the outcome of waiting. The study suggests that if societal trust is established in these children, they are more likely to learn self control and thus more likely to use desirable traits such as self control to succeed in life. Self control is a situational trait that is determined through experiences and environmental impact, rather than a predetermined trait. Early interventions of at risk children (homeless, fatherless) could affect their ability to delay gratification.

A classic definition of weak cognitive self control include impulsiveness, low frustration tolerance, self-centeredness, bullying behavior and risk taking behavior. Studies indicate that when parental discipline, nurturing and monitoring are absent, children are at a greater risk for weak cognitive self control. It makes sense that parents who exhibit weak self control are those most likely to have children that exhibit weak self control. This is because proper parenting requires extensive effort, patience and consistent structure, not likely to be found in the homeless community. Studies indicate a significant link between low maternal self control and low child self control, as many of these families have absent fathers. Simply put, weak cognitive self control plus deviant opportunity equals crime and other negative social outcomes. These children are more likely to have been exposed to drugs and alcohol while in the womb which can cause brain abnormalities linked to self control deficits. In a neglected environment, children do not learn self control skills from their parents or other adults. They may be physically abused, and thus lose control over their emotions.   Studies have shown that the more environmental risk factors a child experiences, the more likely the child will exhibit a lack of self control. Sleep deprivation is another problem among the poor due to many factors. Poor temperatures, hunger, crowded environments and stress can lead to sleep problems. Self control is impaired when a child does not get enough sleep.

A study by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) shows that parents or other important adults have a major impact on whether or not a child develops good cognitive self control. The parents set ground rules, provide structure and discipline, teach consequences, and provide adequate socialization for their children. They monitor their offspring and teach right from wrong. When four conditions are present (care, monitor, recognize, and correct) children learn to avoid situations with long term negative consequences. Studies have shown that all four conditions must be present for the child to learn self-control. There is also the contention that self control is stable once the child passes the ages of 8 or 10 years of age. Good children tend to remain good, while those lacking self control continue to be worrisome to parents and teachers, and could lead to juvenile delinquency. This suggests that the window of opportunity to make a difference in a child’s life occurs in early childhood. Any teacher can identify those children at risk. For example, if a child is disruptive in the classroom in second or third grade, he would be identified as a child who requires intervention to learn self control techniques. Parents would be brought into the discussion and taught the four conditions necessary for learning self control (care, monitor, recognize and correct), and work in conjunction with the teacher to establish ground rules to put the child on a positive path.

Children with the least amount of trust (absent fathers, homeless environments) are those that score the lowest in self control and delayed gratification, strengthening my hypothesis that trust and confidence are essential elements to be successful. These children had little faith that the adults would deliver on their promises, thus they live in unreliable worlds. Instilling self control in this at-risk population would result in the ability to make rational decisions based on consequences. They would develop social bonds that could impede deviant behavior. Homeless children and young adults are presented with many opportunities for deviant behavior while faced with trying to fulfill basic needs such as food and shelter. Early intervention through parental education and societal resources could result in a much better outcome for homeless children.

Acquiring self control skills will lead to greater success in the classroom, and in life. Self control is one of the most important traits that a person can possess in order to be successful. Self regulation is defined as a cognitive skill that enables mindful, intentional and thoughtful behavior. It involves the ability to control impulses, such as not drinking alcohol the night before class. It also involves the capacity to do something because it is needed.   Imagine if a student is confronted with the choice of going to a party or studying for a chemistry exam. The student knows that sacrificing time to study and do well on the exam will go far in improving the chances for good grades, while partying may be fun in the short term but will do nothing to achieve the goal to get into medical school. Flash forward to medical school, where every day including weekends is a never ending repeat of sleep, study, eat and more study. During this time, the student watches friends sleep late, go out, have fun. The student is aware, however, that the delaying gratification will result in a successful, respected career. Anything less would be a huge disappointment and the student is focused on the goal.   Doctors are masters at self control and delayed gratification. They could not become physicians without possessing these traits. Athletes are also masters at delaying gratification, as they put long hours into training and work hard at keeping their bodies healthy. A person’s willingness to exhibit self control when they could enjoy immediate gratification depends on the goal they wish to achieve and whether or not there is a future reward, such as making the varsity hockey team or being accepted into medical school.

A causal relationship has been found between trust and delaying gratification. A 2013 joint study by researchers from the University of Colorado and Boston University, led by Laura Michaelson, provides the first demonstration of a causal role of social trust in delaying gratification. The researchers manipulated trust while avoiding manipulating of rewards establishing the causal relationship. The study found that participants dealing with untrustworthy characters were 33% less likely to wait a week for a reward than those participants dealing with trustworthy characters. Clearly, there is an assumption of a future reward in order to do something undesired or unwanted to get that future reward. If the trust in the outcome is non-existent, such as in the homeless community as a whole, then impulsive behavior is more likely. After all, why wait for a reward that you never received in the past? This study emphasizes the role of social trust in the ability to self control, and that delaying gratification does not occur in a social vacuum. It suggests that certain populations such as criminals, youth and homeless might struggle because of their lack of trust that reward will be delivered, and that implementing social trust may address some of the struggles.

In the article Delaying Gratification Depends on Social Trust, researchers discovered a causal role in social trust in delaying gratification. Simply put, a person has to believe that a future reward will be delivered in return for delaying gratification. If the trust is absent, such as in negative experiences and environments, then the likelihood of self control drops significantly. The fact that the Marshmallow Study demonstrates that delaying gratification at 4 years of age is a predictor of a healthier, more successful future shows the importance of instilling social trust in at risk populations at a young age. Developing social trust that would encourage them to delay gratification in order to achieve a better future.

Furthermore, James Clear’s article 40 Years of Stanford Research Found That People With This One Quality Are More Likely To Succeed supports the thesis that delaying gratification occurs when there is trust in the outcome. Children were given treats in both reliable and unreliable environments. If a child had no trust in getting that second treat, they were quick to eat the first treat. In a reliable environment, however, children were more willing to delay gratification to get that second treat. The results of the environment, negative or positive, were almost instantaneous. This proves that delaying gratification can be learned and is influenced by trust and confidence in the outcome.

James Clear cites Celeste Kidd’s research as proof that environment and trust affect a person’s ability to self control. If there is a goal to be reached, then self discipline and delayed gratification are required, and self control can be learned. The secret is to start small and deliver on it. For example, I know that going to the gym and exercising is good for my health and mental wellbeing, but it is so much easier to stay snuggled in my bed, or go out to eat with friends. So I used some of the tips I learned during my research to teach myself to delay gratification.

1. Start Small. Make it so easy you can’t say no. I promised to exercise one time every week. Soon I was exercising three times a week.
2. Improve Something by 1%. Every day. I do one more rep, or stay 5 minutes longer, or eat one less chicken nugget meal.
3. Consistency. I mark off every day on my wall calendar with a big X and see how far I’ve come. It helps me bounce back from a bad day.
4. The 2 Minute Rule. Don’t procrastinate. Spend 2 minutes on that paper, or homework, or reading that book, or eating that piece of fruit. It’s easier to finish once you get started.

The result is that I have avoided the dreaded “Freshman 15” and I feel healthier. Most importantly, I learned I had the ability to self control, which reinforces my position that self control can be learned and applied. Obviously, I had trust that the outcome would be a healthier, happier me.

Works Cited

“40 Years of Stanford Research Found That People With This One Quality Are More Likely to Succeed.” 40 Years of Stanford Research Found That People With This One Quality Are More Likely to Succeed. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2015.

“Delaying Gratification Depends on Social Trust.” Frontiers. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2015.

“The Marshmallow Study Revisited.” : Rochester News. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2015.

“Walter Mischel, The Marshallow Test, and Self-Control – The New Yorker.” The New Yorker. N.p., 09 Oct. 2014. Web. 04 Dec. 2015.

“The General Theory: Self-Control – Criminology – Oxford Bibliographies – Obo.” The General Theory: Self-Control. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Dec. 2015.

“Ability to Delay Gratification May Be Linked to Social Trust, New CU-Boulder Study Finds.” News Center. N.p., 04 Sept. 2013. Web. 04 Dec. 2015.

Consent is Sexy

From a young age parents tell their children to keep an open mind and embrace different cultures. They teach us to be courteous and mindful of different backgrounds and traditions. Regardless of whether one agrees with a culture or not, norms tell us to be accepting of it and what it brings to the world. A brand new culture has been introduced to society today. A culture that doesn’t rely on different food or a person’s origin. Rape culture is when society blames victims of sexual assault and normalize male sexual violence. In the midst in this craze, the quality of the culture is being clouded and people are so willing to accept a culture based around the exploitation of women. Children are growing up in a time where we are teaching young girls how to be extra careful and avoid rape instead of teaching boys not to be rapists.

Rape victims are always raped twice. First they are physically raped, then they are raped emotionally by the justice system and society. After experiencing the devastation of rape, victims often confide in an authority in hopes that their grievances will be addressed and their attacker be punished. Instead of being relieved by the actions of the justice system, victims are shamed and blamed for being victims. After going through such a traumatic experience, victims are scared and often feel alone. Help and answers are often sought after but instead victims receive ridicule. The long term effects of emotional rape surpass the physical action, causing depression, anxiety, and a lack of self-worth. In the CNN documentary “The Hunting Ground” a student reportedly stated that “My rape was bad but the way they handled it was worse.”

1 in every 6 women in the United States have been victim to rape, attempted rape or aggravated assault in their lifetime. When victims come forward they are often brushed aside or condemned for being victims. Victims are shamed and their abusers go on living a normal life. When brought to face the justice system, rapists often roam free the very next day. 97% of rapists don’t spend a single night in jail. The victims may be severely traumatized by the event and their attackers are back on the streets. Due to the inconsistencies in the justice system rapists have no fear when it comes to punishment. Instead of being prosecuted, they are free to assault or abuse once again.

At Columbia University, Emma Sulkowicz was raped. Her rapist still goes to her school and roams campus freely alongside of her and her peers. After reporting her assault she learned that two other women reported the same man had raped and assaulted them in the past. However, the University found a way to dismiss each of the three cases. Students at the University filed a federal report saying that the “school is too lenient with alleged perpetrators and it discourages students from reporting assault.” So instead of being comfortable with reporting an assault, students feel uneasy. This encourages perpetrators to continue assaulting because there is no punishment for their actions.

The groundbreaking CNN documentary “The Hunting Ground” highlights rape and sexual assault on college campuses. The film went into detail about how colleges hide and ignore sexual assault allegations on campuses. In the documentary a college administrator went on record saying “colleges deliberately make it more difficult to report rape and sexual assault because it is in the colleges best interest to silence the problem.” The most prominent case in the media today is the case of former Florida State University quarterback Jameis Winston. In December 2012 Erica Kinsman was raped and reported her assault. While being interviewed by the Tallahassee police Kinsman was told, “This is a huge football town. You really should think long and hard if you want to press charges.” She went on to press charges. The Tallahassee police took no action for ten months. Instead of support, Erica Kinsman received threats from unhappy FSU fans. Despite Winston assaulting her, he was being considered the victim.

Other victims in the film spoke of their encounters with their rapists and how the schools handled it. In the United States, less than 8% of men commit 90% of rapes. This means that most perpetrators go on to commit second and third offenses. Nationally, 88% of victims don’t report their rape or sexual assault because it is so difficult to do so. When victims did report their assault, they were often are told that they “shouldn’t have been drinking” or that they “should’ve fought back.”

The most common misconception in society is that women are “asking for it.” Whatever “it” is. Whether it is attention, physical contact, or sex, people assume that women want “it.” They are under the impression that all women want the attention, as if they feed off of it.  If a woman leaves her house in a short skirt and a pair of high heels, men assume that she wants sex because she is dressed sexy. The idea that a woman can dress nicely for her own enjoyment seems foreign to men. Men think that every time a woman sees a man she wants him to notice her.  So when women fall victim to rape or sexual assault, it is automatically assumed that they were dressed sexy and were “asking for it.” Saddest of all, as a society both men and women see a short skirt and a pair of high heels as an open invitation for advances.

However, in the society we live in today, whether a woman is dressed scantly or modestly she receives all sorts of unwanted and unrequested attention. A video was released by Huffington Post last fall after a woman named Shoshana Roberts walked around New York City for ten hours and received over one hundred cat calls. A cat call is a sexual gesture towards a woman, whether it be whistling, shouting or an inappropriate comment. Shoshana dressed in jeans and a black crew-neck t-shirt, clothes that most would consider moderately conservative (definitely not “asking for it”). Even without acknowledging the comments of her cat callers, she received unwanted feedback. One man followed her down the block for five minutes. Shoshana made no eye contact, walked briskly in the opposite direction and didn’t respond to his cat calls yet these men still assumed she craved the attention and was asking to be acknowledged. Even if these men are chasing her because they are truly interested, they need to realize that the way to a woman’s heart isn’t whistling at her like she is an animal.

If we know this is a problem, why does it keep happening? The emergence of rape culture has become the normalization of aggressive sexual acts and exploitation of women. Instead of being incarcerated, rapists and abusers are roaming the streets because another woman supposedly cried wolf. Even though the 95% of rape reports are not false claims. A prime example of this culture is the sexual assault case of fourteen year old Daisy Coleman. One evening she drank a little too much and became too intoxicated to make informed decisions. Upon the arrival of two seventeen year old boys, Daisy was raped. Despite her saying no, one of the boys continued anyway. Daisy was found the next morning on her front porch nearly frozen to death.

The boys were charged as adults under Missouri State law. However, after news of the incident spread throughout the town, Daisy was ridiculed and cyber bullied. Local townspeople blamed Daisy because she was too intoxicated to consent and by filing the case she was “ruining these poor boys lives.” People failed to realize that without her being able to give consent with in a proper state of mind, it is considered rape. After receiving grief from the townspeople the state dismissed the charges based on insufficient evidence. Despite the confession of one of the boys. After the incident the boys finished high school and went on to college in nearby towns. Daisy however was forced to move forty miles away and struggles with her assault daily. Since the incident he has attempted suicide twice.

In cases like Daisy’s, the courts are struggling with identifying what exactly constitutes consent.  Consent is explicitly saying yes to a sexual act. Too often men claim women consent but the woman is not in a proper state of mind. Victims are coming forward and then being pushed aside because society’s view on rape is askew. Women are accusing men and the justice system is accusing women of crying wolf. According to federal law rape includes forms of sexual assault and instances where the victim is incapable of giving consent because of temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity, including due to the influence of drugs or alcohol or because of age.” That means that if someone doesn’t consent or they consent while impaired, it is rape. 9 out of every 10 rape victims are females. The male stigma of what constitutes rape has contributed to the fact that only 1 in every 16 rapists spend a night in jail. The problem is that we are blaming women for getting raped rather than men for raping.

Works Cited

“Nearly Two Years Later, A Controversial Rape Case Is Reviewed.” NPR. NPR, n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2015.

Sieczkowski, Cavan. “Watch This Woman Receive 100 Catcalls While Walking Around For A Day.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2015.

“‘My Rapist Is Still on Campus’: Sex Assault in the Ivy League.” Time. Time, n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2015.

“Rape Culture Is Real.” Time. Time, n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2015

“GET THE FACTS.” Get the Facts. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2015.

Eichelberger, Erika. “Men Defining Rape: A History.” Mother Jones. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2015.

“Home.” The Hunting Ground. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2015.

Latched for Life

For a mother, providing a comfortable and loving environment for a child will be the most important job she ever does. She will go to great lengths to feed and wash and nurture her child. The medical field supports these intentions by encouraging breastfeeding newborns throughout their infancy, as it is a way to not only supply baby with food and nourishment, but a way to create a parent-child bond that every mother strives for.  Motherhood is overwhelming, and controversies concerning the right way to parent are argued daily, but a new form of attachment parenting promises relief. Extreme breastfeeding, or breastfeeding a child past the average weaning age into their school years, is a troubling phenomenon. Recently documented cases of this act show elementary aged children being breastfed, prompting psychologists to voice their opinions. These children will grow up with no way around the negative psychological effects extreme breastfeeding presents. They are being damaged by a mother who thinks that she is strengthening bonds and nurturing her child, when she is actually delaying development and denying the child the right to their own personhood.

The act of breastfeeding can be traced back to the beginning of mankind, depicted in cave drawings, sculpted into ancient pottery, and documented in primeval writings. Although the word itself is essentially self-explanatory, breastfeeding ideas continue to evolve leaving parents and healthcare providers alike with questions. Breastfeeding can be defined as feeding a child breastmilk directly from the nipple into the child’s mouth, and although any one person may be able to understand breastfeeding in the physical act, accepting the concept is a different story. The Center for Disease Control reports that 77% of newborn infants are being breastfed, a number that has increased greatly in recent years. These babies, being fed by their mothers, are receiving antibodies and nutrients that will benefit them for years to come. Newborns are helpless and have almost only one way to eat, relying on the natural resource that mothers are able to provide. Without the vital act of breastfeeding, they are at a higher risk for weaker immune systems and sensitive stomachs down the road, among other things. Breastfeeding carries a child through their first year, as teeth develop and solid foods are introduced, allowing a broader spectrum of health benefits. The mental and physical advantages that breastfeeding an infant provide help many mothers make the decision to feed their baby naturally, but if moms are still nodding their heads yes to this decision five years into their child’s life, it is not farfetched to say that a child will develop psychological issues.

A May 2012 TIME magazine cover depicting mom Jamie Lynne Grumet breastfeeding her son, who was just one month shy of four years old, sparked much controversy not only in the parenting world, but to people everywhere. The cover boldly asked “Are You Mom Enough?” leaving the 26 year old’s parenting choices under much scrutiny. Grumet states that she, as a child breastfed until the age of six, had a very secure feeling of confidence and love throughout childhood and strives to pass that nurturing environment on to her two children.

Australian mom Maha Al Musa publicly spoke out in May of 2015 about her experiences with extreme breastfeeding, arguing that because her six year old daughter likes it so much, she will continue as long as needed. Al Musa, claiming that it is all for the child, frequently posts pictures and encouraging words on social media for the world to see. Her daughter Aminah, although young and naïve about the subject, spoke to an reporter and said “I might stop when I’m eight,”

Veronica Robinson, a mother of two from Great Britain, was featured on a television special about the extreme breastfeeding craze. Robinson’s oldest daughter Bethany was weaned at age five, but her nearly eight year old daughter Eliza was still breastfeeding. Mrs. Robinson spoke for these extreme acts, bringing up the health benefits and the comfort it brings a child. The Robinson’s case may be one of the most jarring that psychologists have ever seen. Eliza and Bethany often play with their mother’s breasts, draw pictures of them, and even scold her for wearing a bra, as the girls think the breasts are trapped. This single documentation of extreme breastfeeding was enough for psychologists to deem this new form of attachment parenting wrong.

Although women like Jamie Lynne Grumet and Veronica Robinson gush about the bond that is made and the feelings of confidence and comfort that accompany breastfeeding, they do not see past their own attachment parenting. Practitioners of extreme breastfeeding are blind to the damage they are doing. Without independence, children are unable to evolve. Smothering them with attachment parenting will present many consequences during their very important developmental years.

At age two, children become aware that they are separate individuals, different from everyone else. They realize that they have control over many aspects of their lives, like what they want to eat or where they want to go. Breastfeeding a baby creates a lasting bond that eventually grows into hugs, cuddles, and kisses, but when a mother realizes that she is no longer a necessity at all times, she may feel unwanted. This is where attachment parenting as a whole stems from. Mothers want to be the source of their children’s happiness, so much that without realizing it, they may inhibit the physical independence of a child, suffocating the newfound control a toddler has. Afraid that the needs children possess may dissipate at a certain age, mothers can prolong their significance by breastfeeding as long as possible, keeping their child close literally through physical touch, and mentally through mother-child bonding. This gives kids the idea that they can do nothing without their mother.  Separation from both mother and father play a key role in the development of independence. Children must learn to cope without their parents and become acclimated to different environments and situations, but an upbringing that denies necessary freedom will surely skew this natural path of development.

Extreme breastfeeding not only limits a child’s mobile independence, but their mental development as well. Babies develop the ability to self soothe within the first few months of life, and continue to do so throughout their childhood. It is one of the first personal abilities they will have, and is therefore vital in development. It is acceptable to breastfeed a three month old when they are inconsolable, but when a child is breastfed into their elementary school years, they will not know any other way to calm down in upsetting situations. Extreme breastfeeding has proven itself as a way for mothers to give themselves a purpose when their preschooler skins their knee, no longer a way to provide food for their baby. If a child from a home where extreme breastfeeding can be found has a meltdown in school or any other public place, the first thing they will want is their mother’s breast. Mothers seem to forget that they will not always be there for a quick feeding session to stop the tears.  After infancy, it is unhealthy for a parent to suppress their child’s ability to self soothe. Without this mechanism, children are unable to develop more advanced mentalities and grow to their potential.

Social limitations have presented as negative side effects of the extreme breastfeeding craze as well. Kids learn to socialize, ask questions, and initiate conversation during this time period. They are able to communicate their needs and wants. Children who are breastfed into their educational years will have a much harder time making friends and learning in a school setting, thanks to a mother who never let them think for themselves.  Parents are setting their child up for failure by denying them the right to grow. Nothing gives schoolmates license to tease more than a child that is still breastfed. Kids are crueler and more desensitized to the things that once hurt the feelings of others, and damage to a child’s self-esteem at this age will have lasting effects. Jamie Lynne Grumet’s son will forever be known as the little boy who suckled his mother on the cover of a national magazine. He is homeschooled, perhaps because his parents want to shield him from what other children might say about their own choices and how it effects their son. Maha Al Musa’s daughter will always be reminded of how her mother posted daily pictures of the two during feedings. This kind of attachment parenting is detrimental to this age group, cementing a stigma on these children that will follow them for the rest of their lives.

Perhaps one of the most shocking results of extreme breastfeeding thus far is the heavy dose of confusion it gives children. Personal boundaries seem to no longer have meaning. Dr. Ellie Cannon published an article,“That’s just selfish and wrong: How the image of a mother breastfeed a toddler reignited a health controversy”, speaking out against breastfeeding older children, specifically spotlighting Jamie Lynne Grumet’s public display. Cannon made excellent points refuting Grumet’s choices. She states that children who are breastfed well past infancy will not understand limits and appropriate talk and use of bodies. Commentators and authors of separate articles similar to Cannon’s spoke out, many saying that they have witnessed a child demand in perfect speech that they want to be breastfed, like the author of “Breastfeeding Controversy: What’s Normal? What’s Accepted?” Some have even recalled watching a child go up to their mother, open her shirt, and feed without permission. This, in addition to the sensitive period of childhood where children become more interested in gender identity and body parts, will complicate this stage of development. If a child can go up to their mother and open her shirt to breastfeed, where will they place boundaries on the bodies of others? They have no true idea of what is acceptable.

When extreme breastfeeding is analyzed, there are questions to ask. Is this happening for the child or for the parent? No parent is perfect, and striving to meet the needs of children can get hazy along the way. Mothers get the wrong idea in their heads, thinking that attachment parenting will create a happy child and in turn, a happy mother. Many argue that extreme breastfeeding is a cry for attention and praise as a mother. Writer for The Daily Telegraph Susie O’Brien’s article “Who does extreme breastfeeding really help: a child or their mum?” speculates Maha Al Musa and her rather public style of parenting. There are parents who post pictures of their children excessively, and there is Al Musa, who frequently shares with the world photos of her six year old breastfeeding. Dr. Keith Ablow of the Fox News Medical team is unabashedly disgusted with Jamie Lynne Grumet and her willingness to showcase her son standing on a chair to reach her nipple as she stands with a hand on her hip, staring seductively into the camera. In his article,“Time magazine cover — forget the breast, what about the boy?”, Ablow claims “This is self-centeredness at its worst, sold as good parenting.” And rightfully so, as Grumet stains her son for life without understanding how affected he will be by her actions.

Breastfeeding past the accepted weaning age becomes a case of having poor boundaries and an unclear idea of lifting children up to their potential. If a mother wants to be involved and feel like she has a purpose in the life of her children, there are other ways to fulfill that need. There is no clear answer to whether the act is narcissistic or nurturing, but psychologists argue that it does no good for a child and is a selfish way for mothers to perpetuate their importance. There is no coincidence of developmental delays in a child blanketed under their attached parent. The popular television show Game of Thrones includes a character who breastfeeds her adolescent son, who is depicted as cognitively under-developed for his age. This portrayal is not an accident. Weaning a child off of breastmilk is done for the same reason as potty training and teaching them to walk and talk. They must learn to be independent beings. As they are breastfed beyond the typical age, they are being deprived of a normal childhood. The psychological repercussions will become evident as a child grows older in an extreme breastfeeding home, causing possible issues with school, peers, future relationships, and self-esteem. All over the world, healthy breastfed babies will grow into damaged breastfed children if the number of mothers choosing extreme breastfeeding continues to increase.

Works Cited

Ablow, Dr. Keith. “Time magazine cover — forget the breast, what about the boy?”. Foxnews.com. 11 May 2012. Web. 2 November 2015. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/11/time-magazine-cover-forget-breast-what-about-boy.html

O’Brien, Susie. “Who does extreme breastfeeding really help: a child or their mum?”. The Daily Telegraph”. 25 May 2015. Web. 2 November 2015. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/who-does-extreme-breastfeeding-really-help-a-child-or-their-mum/story-fnpug1jf-1227368766830

Cannon, Dr. Ellie. “That’s just selfish and wrong: How the image of a mother breastfeed a toddler reignited a health controversy”. The Daily Mail. 19 May 2012. Web. 3 November 2015. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2146870/Breastfeed-year-old-Thats-just-selfish-wrong.html

National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. “Breastfeeding Report Card, United States/2013. July 2013.  http://www.cdc.gov/breastfeeding/pdf/2013breastfeedingreportcard.pdf

“Breastfeeding Controversy: What is Normal? What is Accepted?” WordPress.com. 18 May 2012.   https://formingthethread.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/breastfeeding-controversy-whats-normal-whats-accepted/

It’s Okay To Feel Sad Sometimes

It’s no secret performers are crazy. From the Evel Knievel types risking their lives for the thrill and entertainment of their audience to the comedians trying for their big break in some small time coffee shop, the stigma follows that any person who would lay themselves out on stage in front of others is a bit off their rocker. Although creativity is closely associated with madness, there’s no reason to be afraid of such high energy folks. All performers really want is a big ol’ hug, to make up for all the times they were never hugged as children. That remedy may seem hilariously ineffective, but there is a bit of truth there. In reality, a number of performers, specifically comedians, are the way they are because of trauma or neglect, leading to developments of a spectrum of mental illnesses and related symptoms. Every one of us has gone through a personal trauma since birth, but for the few who make it out alive and unscathed, there are more who suffered endless abuse or neglect, creating a mound of insecurities to sort through that many hide behind as we age. A need for validation and acceptance is born and suddenly we crave to be noticed. Comedians have bested all of us in paying the greatest attention to that craving by willing themselves to bare all out onstage for the rest of us to enjoy. However, what many don’t realize is that there is a greater cost to being successful as a creative.

For many years, there has been a stereotype floating around that is most simply named the “Depressed Comedian.” Along with the title comes a picture of a weary, run down, alcohol-soaked, and/or drugged up performer stemmed from the fact that a large majority of the comedic community suffers from depression and related mental illnesses. As harsh as the imagery seems, comedians are indeed certifiably disturbed, as found by Oxford University. Using the Oxford–Liverpool Inventory of Feelings and Experiences, a survey simply referred to as O-LIFE, the study was searching for any correlation between creative people and bipolar and schizophrenic symptoms. The survey measures subject’s personal experience with Unusual Experiences (belief in the supernatural and magic powers), Cognitive Disorganization (Distractibility), Introvertive Anhedonia (reduces social and physical pleasure), and Impulsive Non-conformity (tendency toward impulsive, anti-social behavior and lack of mood related self-control). In all four areas, comedians were found to have a reading for both psychotic traits, having tested slightly higher in all areas than their close cousin, the actor (who only scored above average in Unusual Experience, Cognitive Disorganization, and Impulsiveness), and higher still than those in a non-creative field. Being labeled “crazy” generally doesn’t have a great connotation, yet there is still a deeper, darker force at work when dealing with instability. There’s plenty of working comedians who have come forward about the struggles their colleges and they themselves have faced. Wanye Brady, for instance, who stared on Whose Line Is It Anyway? offered his own outlook on his battle with depression:

It starts this cycle where you tell yourself these lies … and those lies become true to you … So, you stick to your own truth you’ve set up. ‘If I am this bad, then why should any of this matter?’ I feel at that point, you end up wanting to stop the pain.

There is a painful truth to be recognized, that the stereotype is in a way true as evidenced by the long line of beautifully talented performers who took their own lives since the beginning of comedy, being traced as far back as 1916 when Charley Case, an African-American vaudeville performer, allegedly suffered a nervous breakdown and died while “cleaning his revolver” as reports would later read (McGraw & Warner, 2014).
There are too many cases all too similar to Charley’s where things take a turn for the worst, but there is hope in the work of comedy itself. Humor is a reliable form of self-defense, as explained by researchers at Washington State University. They forward their findings by stating that we all react to negative life events differently, but humor has always been a relatively comfortable way to address painful situations directly without making us or others uncomfortable.

However, there is a very delicate balance to what will be considered funny. Let’s think in extremes. For instance, the reaction to the terrorist attacks on 9/11. According to Peter McGraw & Caleb Warren’s Benign Violation Theory of Comedy, this tragedy would only be funny once a significant amount of time had passed. Gilbert Gotfried made an ill-timed joke about a flight of his taking a stop at the Empire State Building that left us with a bad taste in our mouths. The Onion, a comedy website, had published an article a few weeks later entitled “God Angrily Clarifies the ‘Don’t Kill’ Rule,” that received a plethora of fan mail about readers who found catharsis in the parody. By the Benign Theory, The Onion’s post was funny because it diffused a painful and tragic situation, making it seem harmless, even in the given circumstances. When something that disarming is made harmless and laughable, the audience is able to let go of some of the stress related to the event.

The same coping mechanism is used by those who create comedy as well as the audience. Comedians have to special power and skill to bring their own issues and broken paths to to forefront, spinning them in a way that becomes harmless and far away, thus making it funny. When the performer expresses their thoughts, opinions, and troubles to an audience, the issue is a little less sad, and the laugh lifts a weight from their shoulders. By making us laugh and showing we like what we hear, a comedian is validated. In that moment of collective catharsis, we get the acceptance we all seek, even if it is only temporary. In the words of the late Robin William, “Every time you get depressed, comedy will be there to drag your ass out of it,” (1996).

With all the heavy, soul crushing talk of mental illness, it is important to point out that there’s a bright side! In fact, there are many who believe that mental instability is key for a great comedy routine. As mentioned previously, comedians test higher than pretty much everyone for psychotic traits, specifically found in bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.“Psychotic,” can raise a few red flags in everyday conversation, so let’s break it down. Psychosis, by medical definition, is a disorder characterized by emotions that are so impaired there is a loss of contact with reality. There are a number of ways psychosis is developed, including disease, alcohol, and illegal drugs, most anything that damages the brain over time. Bipolar disorder is most simply broken down to violent mood swings as well as “high” and “low” moods, while schizophrenia concise mostly of audio and visual hallucinations, as well as split personality. These are a lot of scary things that don’t seem good in any way at all, but there is a silver lining hiding somewhere. Thankful, comedians don’t necessarily have these disorders and only share cognitive style, but in any case, these traits promote creative thinking, and help in creating routines filled with original, interesting, and thought-provoking material. Along with that, the bipolar cognitive style that would cause violent mood swings involves sudden shifts in processing information, which is an important aspect of comedy more commonly known as comedic timing, while the cognitive disorganization in schizotypal traits connects and associates odd and unusual things, going along with the “outside the box” mentality.

Regardless of the amount of research put into mental illness, there are still those that believe this serious health risk does not exist. One such person would be Thomas Szasz, a psychiatrist ironically enough. The basis of his view is that illness can only affect the body, therefore there is no such thing as mental illness. He believes, “the term mental illness is a metaphor,”; the mind is sick in the same way a car or computer is “sick,” and that the diagnoses made are basically fancy names for behavior that annoys or offends others. These claims are a bit outrageous, in all honestly. For one thing, a fever does not have a physical presence, much like psychological symptoms in mental illness. Both are indicative of a bigger problem within the body, but unlike a physical injury, cannot be put in a cast or stitched up. That doesn’t make a fever any less real, so why is mental illness considered fake under the same circumstances? Szasz’s claims are altogether absurd and offensive, as mental illness has been detrimental to countless lives. Treating mental illness like a child’s tantrum or a computer virus oversimplifies a very complicated cognitive problem, invalidating and undermining all of us who suffer from mental illnesses today.

Mental illness is a serious issue in today’s society that has only recently gained public awareness. A plague in the comedian community, depression and other disorders are a daily struggle for those that work so hard to make others smile. Comedy truly demands a strong relationship between performer and audience, and while comedians are crazy, technically speaking, it makes their work all the better. Being a bit crazy means they see the world from a different perspective, so they are able to pick out details many others would generally overlook, causing us to miss out on interesting commentary on our world today. Coping through comedy is a difficult task, as it takes a trained eye and skilled performer to make a great routine, but by showing our love for our favorite comedians, we can help keep them and the community thriving for decades to come.

Works Cited

Osterndorf, Chris. “On Wayne Brady and Why so Many Stand-up Comics Face Depression.” The Daily Dot. 5 Nov. 2014. Web. 28 Sept. 2015.

Ando, V., G. Claridge, and K. Clark. “Psychotic Traits in Comedians.” The British Journal of Psychiatry (2014): 341-45. ProfSearch. Web. 3 Dec. 2015.

Youngs, Ian. “Robin Williams and the Link between Comedy and Depression.” BBC News. 12 Aug. 2014. Web. 28 Sept. 2015.

McGraw, Peter, and Joel Warner. “Is the Stereotype of the Depressed Comedian True?” Slate. The Humor Code. Web. 24 Nov. 2015.

“Comedians Have ‘high Levels of Psychotic Traits’.” BBC News. N.p., 16 Jan. 2014. Web. 28 Sept. 2015.

Mcgraw, A. P., and C. Warren. “Benign Violations: Making Immoral Behavior Funny.” Psychological Science (2010): 1141-149. Web. 3 Nov. 2015.

Zoos and Aquariums: Exploitation of Animals, not Education

Today 3,200 tigers roam free in the wild. Approximately 5,000 tigers are held in captivity at zoos around the world. These tigers are given a death sentence when they are brought to zoos for enjoyment and for “educational experience.” Just as humans who are held in solitary confinement express unusual mental behavior, many wild animals have begun to express abnormal behaviors while in captivity, ultimately harming their well being. Based on the dwindling numbers of wild animals and the unnatural behaviors the animals express, keeping animals in Zoos is an idea that has come and gone; keeping wild animals in captivity is unethical.

Various laws concerning wild animals in captivity cause confusion to what animals are protected while in zoos. There are three different levels of laws varying from the state to international. According to the article Overview of the Laws Affecting Zoos by Kali S. Grech, the author states that “On the federal level, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) is the only statute that protects the welfare of individual zoo animals. Under the AWA, animals that meet the definition set forth in the statute, in the custody of a dealer or exhibitor, are protected by the statute. The definition of an animal, however, greatly limits the scope of the act. All cold-blooded animals, constituting a great number of the animals housed in zoos, are excluded from protection.” Animals are extremely diverse and are hard to make laws for. For endangered species getting a law that protects them is even harder. Grech also notes that “The Endangered Species Act (ESA) applies only to specifically listed animals, and even then it only regulates the import or export of species being bought or sold in foreign commerce.” The exclusive laws set forth for wild animals make fair treatment of animals inside and outside of zoos close to impossible.

Although zoos might seem to be a success, zoos and aquariums are false advertisements to the public.Once wild animals are captured and arrive at a zoo, they’re trapped in a cage for the rest of their life, just as humans are when they’re sentenced to prison for life. Most exhibits within a zoo or aquarium lack the sufficient space a large wild animal such as a tiger or killer whale needs to live and some of these exhibits can physically harm an animal’s skin..  For example, a killer whale, also known as an orca is extremely large in size when compared to most captive wild animals. In the article Marine Mammals in Captivity posted by Canadian Federation of Humane Society , the article states that killer whales “live in pods of two to fifty whales and swim up to 100 miles in a day and dive to depths of 500 feet [and that orcas] prefer deep water and usually spend 10 to 20 per cent of their time at the surface.” The effect of not being able to live like they do in the wild can be seen in zoos around the world. The article also explains that the wild animals exhibits cause the mammals to “swim in circular patterns, unable to live and swim naturally.” In order for the world to see the animal the tanks have to be extremely clear. The world fails to realize that these animals are swimming in chemicals. For lack of money, the insufficient space is likely never to be expanded once the animal is in his exhibit.If the zoo or aquarium to chose natural waters for their animals, most aquatic tanks would not have an animal in view. Even if the zoos or aquariums make an exhibit larger, the space will never be match an animal’s natural environment.

Living space is not the only aspect that causes abnormal behavior. Another cause of unnatural behavior is the lack of stimulation and foraging behaviors in zoos. These abnormal behaviors can cause reintroduction to the wild to be difficult and lead to unhealthy animals. According to the article Can Wild animals have mental illness? by Ida Korneliussen, the author states “Animals can engage in compulsive actions if they don’t get what they seek and need . . . This is because they cannot escape the cage to look for food.” Animals in captivity that face unusual environments are not able to function as they would out in the wild where they can explore for food and partners. Because the animal’s acclimation to a zoo environment, the captive animals’ lack of natural behavior causes a problem if the animals are ever introduced back out into the wild; the animals’ behavior will differ and the animals would be used to zoo behavior versus wild behaviors.

On a typical day, a zoo visit consists of the observer spending little to no time at each exhibit, examining an animal in a small space.In the article Zoos:An idea Whose Time Has Come and Gone, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals)  explains that zoos are exploitation to the animals and not education. PETA states that “most zoo visitors simply wander around the grounds, pause briefly in front of some displays, and spend their time on snacks and bathroom breaks.” There is no educational value to a zoo trip if there is only a very small time spent where the animals are. The organization also explains “visitors spent less than eight seconds per snake exhibit and only one minute with the lions.”Only spending such a small amount of time per animal exhibit is not a convincing argument about learning how a wild animal lives.  People should be spending minutes or even more time such as hours learning about the animals they are examining.Without zoos having an educational aspect there is no reason to exist.

Thousands of people daily embark on a zoo trip deeming the visit to be educational. During a zoo visit one may see a wild chimp eating his waste or pacing back and forth and believe that it’s his normal behavior without thinking twice about it. In fact, according to the website Zoo Chimps’ Mental Health affected by Captivity “self-mutilation, repetitive rocking, and consumption of feces, are symptoms of compromised mental health in humans, and are not seen in wild chimpanzees.” Often what is seen to be “normal” behavior is overlooked by the people visiting but seriously concerns many researchers. The lack of observation from the zoo visitors are evident in children, who usually go on “educational” school trips. Zoos are popular school trips. According to studies by CAPS (Captive Animals’ Protection Society) in Zoos neither educate nor empower children, newly published research suggests, the organization states that “Only 38% of children were able to demonstrate positive learning outcomes.” CAPS study also concluded that “Majority of children (62%) were deemed to show no change in learning or, worse, experienced negative learning during their trip to the zoo.” Zoos can’t be deemed one hundred percent educational. Even if people learned something from their visit about an animal’s behavior, the chances are high that the information is inaccurate because captive animals don’t usually express natural behaviors. The owners of the zoo are keeping them up and running and do not plan to close down. While many people get nothing other than a souvenir and a some photos, the animals are a day closer to death because the zoos are open.

Some animals that reside in captivity are endangered species. Researchers who work with these wild animals are devoted to caring for these species so that they don’t die off as a whole. In the wild they may not be able to fend for themselves on their own without help. Captive animals are provided with food to survive and the basic necessities to live. For example, different types of birds can’t survive in natural disasters. A such event happened in Puerto Rico in 1989 by Hurricane Hugo wiping a whole bird population to only thirteen birds. According to 8 Zoos Helping Animals Edge out of Extinction “Today, thanks to the efforts of zoo scientists at the Lincoln Park Zoo in Chicago, captive-bred birds at two aviaries number over 200 — and reintroduction is underway. Some 60 wild and captive-born Puerto Rican parrots now live free.” Without the help of the research at the zoo who took the species in their hands, these birds would no longer exist on the earth today. If reintroduction works the population of the birds could be larger in the wild as time passes. Although bringing species in captivity for breeding programs that prevent extinction can be useful, it is not fair for that animal to not be released and die in his exhibit. Zoos should not be where endangered animals reside. Once in captivity the animal faces chances of developing abnormal behavior because of the animal’s new environment.

Animals will continue to have a death sentence if the Zoo’s around the world continue to stay open. Zoos and aquariums are slowly causing animals to disappear because the animals are not being reintroduced back into the wild. Captive animals have a huge risk in developing behaviors that are close to human mental illness. Confinement of these animals are unfair to their well being. Places that hold animals in captivity are unethical. Even with laws regarding wild animals, the animals are harmed. Although there are some advantages to bringing the animals in captivity, the disadvantages for the animal outweigh the advantages.

Works Cited

Korneliussen, Ida. “Can Wild Animals Have Mental Illness?” ScienceNordic. N.p., 24 June 2015. Web. 2 Nov. 2015.

“CFHS | Marine Mammals in Captivity.” RSS. Canadian Federation of Human Societies, n.d. Web. 02 Nov. 2015.

“Zoo Chimps’ Mental Health Affected by Captivity : DNews.” DNews. Web. 2 Nov. 2015

“Zoos: An Idea Whose Time Has Come and Gone.” People For the Ethical Treatment Of Animals. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Oct. 2015.

“Zoos Neither Educate nor Empower Children, Newly Published Research Suggest.” Captive Animals’ Protection Society. N.p., 24 Sept. 2014. Web. 25 Oct. 2015.

Lombardi, Linda. “Animals Saved From Extinction By Zoos.” Vetstreet. Web. 8 Nov. 2015.

“More Tigers in American Backyards than in the Wild.” WWF. N.p., 29 July 2014. Web.

Grech, Kali S. “Overview of the Laws Affecting Zoos.” Animal Legal and Historical Center. N.p., 2004. Web.