Psychology and Stress

A recurrent theme of this blog is: Extreme attitudes make coping with stress difficult. “Men have better judgment and executive ability than women”; “Conservatives are liars”; “Blacks are less intelligent than Whites”; “Winning is the only thing”; “Homosexuality is a choice based on being mentally ill.” These extreme attitudes will make it hard for a person to adapt to situations that require some flexibility. For instance, taking each of the opinions listed above, what if your boss is a woman, or a Black? (You will look for another job.) What if you’re on a project team at work and the other team members seem to be liberal in their views? (You will be seen as uncooperative and selfish, and jeopardize your standing at work.) What if your 8-year-old son is distraught because his baseball team finished last? (You will encourage him to quit, and undermine his self-esteem.) What if your 12-year-old son comes to you and says he thinks he’s gay? (You will show him a road of denial and his self-concept will slowly disintegrate.) In each case, holding an extreme attitude will make it nearly impossible for holders to adopt a problem-solving approach to the stressful situation. Rather, they are more likely to take an emotion-based approach, and the result will be conflict, misinterpretation, frustration, anger, and isolation – all conducive to poor coping.

There are several concepts from the discipline of psychology – confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, cognitive bias – that capture the essence of extremism: distortion of reality. Those who hold rigid extreme attitudes twist and garble information from the outside to keep it consistent with their inflexible world view. Their rationality and accuracy are compromised as they struggle to alter facts to conform to their predetermined beliefs. They harbor anxious self-doubts, low self-esteem, and little confidence. They attack others – “It’s good-me against the evil-them. What my group believes is righteous.” They construct a world of lies, alternative facts, conspiracies, and false narratives to justify their extremism. They turn to domination and violence to eliminate the enemy. Eventually they turn against their own group, and aggression implodes bringing both them and others down. Thus it is that a dysfunctional member of a family can wreak destruction on the whole family; a small-group leader can destroy the cohesion of the group; a national leader can lead millions to their deaths and destroy a country.

Gene, 38, has a high-stress job with a stock market group. The workers exist solely to make money for their clients by choosing how to invest their clients’ money in the market. Gene has a so-so record with the company – a few successes, more failures – but you would never know it. Whether at work or in public, Gene prances and struts around like the head rooster in the farmyard. He boasts to anyone who will listen about his prowess, and he’s always eager to criticize his colleagues. He wears the best clothes, drives a super expensive car, and generally lives beyond his means, which puts a lot of pressure on his wife of 12 years. He also is very opinionated, holding extreme views about virtually everything (religion, politics, and childrearing, just to name a few), and seems to enjoy arguing with others – especially his and his wife’s family members – about the error of their ways when they disagree with him. He became so argumentative at family gatherings that both his parents and his in-laws warned him that if he could not restrain himself, he would not be welcome. The warnings did not work, and Gene, his wife, and kids were essentially ostracized from the rest of the family. His wife managed to keep in contact with the family when Gene was not around, but she, Gene, and the kids no longer attended gatherings like Thanksgiving and Christmas. The family was torn asunder.

Gene’s arrogant behavior is extreme, well beyond what he could logically justify. A psychologist would look at his excessive bragging and conflicts as designed to hide and avoid facing some internal fears. A knowledge of Gene’s childhood would uncover his core insecurity: Gene was raised by an authoritarian, demanding father who could never be pleased. No matter what Gene did, Dad found a way to criticize it. He hit a homerun in Little League, but Dad reminded him he struck out twice; he got a B+ in chemistry, but Dad wondered why not an A. Dad always managed to belittle Gene’s successes, which kept his son’s self-esteem in the toilet. Gene’s adult behavior shows the ego defense of reaction formation: Inside, he is insecure and afraid of failure; his extreme overt displays of confidence are smoke screens—ego defenses—designed to hide those internal fears. His displays of competence and independence are intense and chronic, and they betray in him a desperate attempt to hide his anxieties and weaknesses from others, especially from himself and from Dad. The tragedy was that his desperation brought considerable collateral damage to his family and his wife’s family.

Extremists base their lives on emotion – “I am right! You are wrong and you are evil!” Enchained like a slave, they live in an unchanging, static world of blame, anger, and revenge. Their emotions may eventually turn inward, producing a mind divided against itself, causing more stress. It pays to remember that if you are to cope realistically and successfully with your stressors, you must be guided by facts and results, not by a gut feeling. Only then can you be accountable for your actions, less self-preoccupied, and more socially responsible.

Guidance from the discipline of Psychology about how to raise a child seems to swing back and forth like a pendulum. For instance, 100 years ago, the prominent behaviorist John Watson recommended to parents that they eliminate nighttime thumb sucking in their infants and toddlers by pinning the arms of their bedclothes to the mattress; babies should be raised on a strict feeding schedule; physical punishment of children was appropriate and necessary; and affection between parent and child should be used sparingly. In short, from infancy on, children should be treated as adults. Twenty-five years later, the age of pediatrician Benjamin Spock began, and Watson’s advice was seen as bordering on cruel and barbaric. Spock’s book, “Baby and Child Care,” preached a more permissive childrearing model, and guided the behavior of millions of baby-boom parents following WWII. During the last half of the 20^th century, Spock’s book sold nearly 50 million copies worldwide. His permissive, nurturing approach to childrearing advised parents to recognize and be sensitive to their child’s changing motives, interests, and abilities at different stages of development. He promoted “moderate strictness,” where children must be taught manners, courtesy, cleanliness, and obedience, but always in a context of supportive guidance. He was passionately opposed to using physical punishment with children.

Most adults of the baby-boomer generation (born 1946-1964) can remember being physically punished when they were young. Often, I have heard someone comment on some action by a young person today, and say, “If I ever did that when I was a kid my old man would take a belt to me!” I have also heard baby boomers reflect on their school, and refer to “Miss So-and-so” as someone who wouldn’t hesitate to “wrap me on the knuckles with a block or a ruler if I acted out in class.” Over the Dr. Spock years, however, many of his messages took hold and parental actions like physical punishment slowly were seen as inappropriate for childrearing and schooling. As one young father put it: “I have my own kids now and I don’t use any physical punishment, nor does my wife. These days it’s just too easy to be accused of simple spanking crossing a very blurry line, and becoming something that say a teacher under strict mandated reporting has the duty to report further. I don’t need that! I also believe that violent acts breed violent acts; if I spank, I teach the kid violence is the way to handle things. Not worth it.”

Corporal punishment in the schools also began to fade away during the Spock years. As one teacher put it: “Physical punishment only sends the message to fear the instrument, or provider, and not actually curb the behavior. In schools, we clearly can’t resort to physical punishment, but we do have the option of response-cost, which is taking away something preferred, or positive reinforcement, which is giving something preferred. I tend to use reinforcement much more often because it seems to be more effective. I’d rather do something to earn something, than have to act simply to avoid punishment.”

The teacher’s comment notwithstanding – in our present atmosphere of online threats, gun violence, and extreme verbal aggression by some political leaders – reputable media sources are reporting an increasing trend of allowing corporal punishment in schools. Some school districts have been designing policies that – with written parental permission – allow teachers to use physical punishment in the form of “paddling.” Some of these policies are in effect state-wide. This trend is disturbing because psychologists can call on a mountain of evidence showing that punishment is ineffective in changing behavior, potentially contributes to childhood trauma, and can have adverse consequences that extend into adulthood. Furthermore, think about it – what kind of parents would permit a teacher to inflict pain on their child? Fortunately, in spite of these policies to insert physical punishment into schools, nationwide support for school paddling continues to be low. Most people do not want to see a return to early 20^th century childrearing practices that deny decades of sound psychological research into the cognitive, emotional, and social development of children. From a mental-health perspective, let’s hope corporal punishment stays out of schools.

Ray is a high-school senior enrolled in an AP Literature class. Like 80% of the students in his school Ray is White. His AP teacher is also White. She has been teaching the popular AP course for over 10 years. She includes Black authors in one section of the course, and encourages class discussion on race in America in that section. Most students also say she is known for challenging her students with controversial topics, but does not advocate any particular position because she wants students to be aware of all sides of an issue. Ray wants AP credit, but he is upset about the section of the course that requires him to read “all this Black stuff.” He complains to his parents that she is making him learn “garbage that I don’t want to learn.” His parents complain to the school Principal, who reminds the teacher that the state legislature has just banned teaching of critical race theory. He warns the teacher, “Get rid of that section or I will have to remove you.” She refuses and is replaced by another teacher who is given a revised course outline. Several students and parents complain about the changes, but the Principal says she must obey the law.

The human mind strives for consistency and harmony. Your mind doesn’t like disharmony resulting from contradictory beliefs and actions because such contradictions can produce discomfort and even fear that motivate you to hold onto your beliefs. In Ray’s case, inconsistency is resolved when the teacher is removed – although at the expense of having an educated mind! The threat of facing opposing beliefs stokes fear in the minds of indoctrinated extremists. Psychological insecurities render them vulnerable to facing nuance and diversity in a world they have been taught to believe is filled with absolutes, and they are ill-prepared to accept the reality of variety in the world around them. So it is that they must self-censor their mind by destroying the threat that triggers fear within them. That’s a poor way to cope with reality.

Young people are showing increases in mental and behavioral health problems: loneliness, mood swings, sleep disturbances, anxiety, poor school performance, low confidence and self-esteem, vulnerability to stress, peer-interpersonal disturbances, and family disruptions often lead the list. That last item is of particular importance because psychologists know that a solid, stable relationship with parents is the first line of defense for teens in navigating the confusing biological, cognitive, and emotional swings that go along with adolescence. Unfortunately, for many teens, their parents or friends might also be victims of disturbances to mental well-being. Our early 21^st century world presents a huge and varied frontal attack of stress on the minds and bodies of adults; teens are not the only ones presented with coping challenges from multiple directions.

So how do we help teens – and adults – with their mental well-being? One thing for sure, the answer is not found in the myriad of “wellness” exercises that are plentiful on various media formats. While things like deep breathing, muscle relaxation, and visualization techniques are helpful in the moment, they do not get to the root – the systemic formation – of the mental health issues facing victims of all ages. Also problematic is the fact that media sources entrap teens to focus on self-centered, egotistical traits like physical beauty and perfection as providing the pathway to well-being and happiness. What is needed are more fundamental problem-solving approaches like the following: (1) Communication with others. Victims need to hear and understand that what seems to be criticism and rejection directed at them does not put the blame for their issues on them; the critics also have issues, and they often project their issues onto the victim. (2) What follows from communication is Empathy. There is nothing more uplifting for one suffering from mental health issues than realizing that others have the same problems and need understanding, too. The development of empathy is essential to healthy coping with stress. (3) What follows from empathy is Service to Others, which has enormous healing properties for the helper. Few scenes are more tragic than a lonely, confused, dejected person of any age locked onto their computer screen desperately seeking happiness and validity for being, but finding instead “advice” that leads them farther into a black hole of despondency, misery, and hopelessness. Service to others allows them to break from this technological spell of deprivation, get “outside” of themselves, and act to help others in need. Such actions encourage the helper to discover value in self-sacrifice, selflessness, and philanthropy. (4) What follows from service to others is a discovery of one’s values. Effective coping cannot continue without a set of values to guide one’s actions; values give purpose and meaning to those actions. (5) What follows from values is the emergence of contentment, satisfaction, self-discovery, and happiness at one’s place in life. Happiness cannot be sought; it materializes from values-laden actions.

A basic tenet of psychology is that when you see yourself engaging in an activity, you incorporate that activity, and its accompanying values, into your self-concept. When you serve others with purpose, meaning, and contentment, you will endow your self-concept with purpose, meaning, and contentment, and arm yourself to cope successfully with the stressors and challenges that face you. Keep that fundamental principle in mind next time you struggle with yourself.

Has anyone ever said to you, “What are you doing? You seem totally depressed. Can’t you see you’re just hurting yourself?” Maybe you’re in an abusive relationship; maybe you’re having indiscriminate sex; maybe you’re ravaging your body with drugs and alcohol; maybe you’re gambling away most of your paycheck and your spouse is ready to take a hike. One way or the other, you’re engaging in risky behavior. You are not overtly or genuinely trying to kill yourself, but you’re certainly leading a self-destructive life, and acting like you don’t care if you live or die. People with this ambivalent attitude often live a lifestyle that escalates into exposing themselves to more and more risky behaviors. Like an untreated sore that can become infected, what begins as moderate apathy – “If I die today what’s the big deal?” –  becomes like a whirlpool that gradually sucks the victim into despair. Do you live “on the edge” of life, regularly engaging in risky actions? Do you show self-neglect and carelessness? Are your moods characterized by negativity, pessimism, and depressive thoughts? If so, you may be afflicted with what therapist Michael Church calls Subtle Suicide.

Dr. Church has found that clients who fit the Subtle Suicide profile are generally not helped by anti-depressant medications. Their problem appears to be rooted in avoidance actions they have learned over a long period of time. They work to avoid stress and confrontation and tend to “bottle up” emotions and not deal with them; they often show addictive behaviors like gambling, alcoholism, excessive drug use, and overeating; and, they develop symptoms of depression and anxiety. These actions and symptoms are often mistaken as their root problems, and both counseling and medication are geared to them, not to the subtle-suicidal ambivalence that underlies the symptoms.

Jack, the older of two children, was always a physically large, overweight boy, and the other kids typically made fun of him. Consequently, he never developed much self-confidence and had low self-esteem. His home life was lacking in warmth and love. In fact, the primary source of acceptance in Jack’s family seemed to be food. Whenever the kids came home from school, Mom was in the kitchen cooking, ready to welcome them with all sorts of treats. Jack’s father was domineering, cold, and harsh. We do not know if Jack’s father physically abused him. When asked, Jack was evasive.

In high school and college, Jack got acceptable grades and stayed out of trouble. He plugged along, avoiding challenge and confrontation. After graduation from college, he got a job, met a girl, got married, and began a family. Unfortunately, he continued to avoid facing the challenges of life. His wife, Brenda, ran the household and made most of the decisions, both domestic and financial. When children came along, Brenda became the disciplinarian and primary caretaker. Jack had no clear father model from his childhood, and he stayed in the background when it came to raising the kids.  

After a couple of unsatisfactory jobs and a failed business venture, Jack eventually found a job that gave him some success and financial security. Over the years, however, his drinking increased significantly. He spent long hours away from home socializing and drinking while Brenda was home managing the kids and the home. When she confronted him about his need to take on more responsibility and be more involved, he got angry and refused to discuss the situation. Jack developed some health problems in his early forties, but he kept his symptoms to himself. He chose not to tell Brenda about his pains and not to get checked out by his physician. Eventually he developed open, bleeding sores on his skin, and he needed Brenda’s help in caring for them. Brenda pleaded with him to go to the doctor but he still stubbornly refused, even as his condition worsened. His denial and avoidance tendencies had now reached irrational levels. Brenda took extreme action and had him involuntarily committed to a medical facility for diagnosis and treatment. Her actions, unfortunately, came too late. The physicians said his cancer was too advanced and he died within a couple of months.

Beginning in childhood, Jack’s life was devoted to avoidance of conflict. His domineering father scared him so much he withdrew into a shell; his mother showed little warmth toward him except by cooking. Jack’s view of life became negative, based on a belief that people were untrustworthy and threatening. By adulthood he showed little compassion for himself or his family. He was self-absorbed, disconnected from others, and had no sense of purpose or life goals. He did not care about his own life and took no steps to help himself. Nothing seemed to matter to him except avoiding confrontation with others. His lifetime of avoidance and apathy showed an ambivalence toward living that is typical of the subtle suicide individual. His withdrawal strategy was doomed to fail because confronting and dealing with negative emotions and psychological pain are necessary if we are to become psychologically strong and healthy. Jack, however, refused to do so. His avoidance actions grew stronger and took him in a downward spiral from which he could not escape.

            Mark is a friend of mine who is a teacher. He recently wrote about changes in his teaching duties, and reading his words struck me as describing precisely what it is that teachers do. There is so much negativity about teachers these days – much of it focusing on what they are allowed to say and not allowed to say in the classroom. The negativity is brought about by state legislators who seem to think they know what teaching is all about. No wonder that teachers are leaving the profession in large numbers. These legislators vote for politically-tinged guidelines dictating teacher behavior, not recognizing that their new laws ignore what teachers actually do, and how they impact a developing young person’s mind in positive ways. Listen to what Mark has to say:

            “I just closed another chapter of my life, as I will no longer be teaching history.  I will no longer be teaching in the junior high either.  I will now be teaching in the ESL Dept (English as a Second Language) in the new W-B Area high school.  As I proceed through my career, I look at my role as a teacher as a tapestry of existence into the lives of my students. Every teacher (not just me) becomes a fleeting thread, woven into their grand design of time, and leaving my mark upon this world is not simply measured by the footprints I leave behind, but by the echoes of my intentions, the ripples of my actions and the lives I touch. As I navigate through this journey, I am tasked with dealing with students with a sense of empathy, kindness, and meaningful connections in a delicate balance between moments of joy and sorrow, purpose and uncertainty. The legacy we forge is not simply etched into stone, but it’s etched into the hearts and minds of those we encounter along our journey. It is a testament to our ability to inspire, uplift, and ignite the sparks within others. So let us strive not for the fleeting glory of fame or recognition, but for the enduring resonance of our influence. Let us sow seeds of compassion, tend the garden of knowledge, and let our actions be the brushstrokes of a masterpiece that continues to evolve, long after we have whispered our final farewells.”

            Mark’s insightful words remind me of an experience years ago. It was Parents’ Weekend at the college where I was teaching, and I had agreed to serve on a panel to discuss with parents the academic experience from our faculty perspectives. We introduced ourselves – name and department, until the professor after me said, “Hi, I’m Gregory Henson of the history department. But I don’t teach history; I teach your sons and daughters.” I was a young faculty member, 7 years into what would turn out to be a 41-year career, and I remember thinking to myself, “What’s he talking about? He teaches history!”

            I believe that Mark’s comments above describe well what Dr. Henson meant by his comment. Teaching is much more than just emptying content into students’ brains. I also believe that Mark’s comments show us how teaching has relevance to what we talk about in this blog – coping with stress. Note the similar positive coping themes of development that Mark touches on: “meaningful connections”; understanding the “balance between moments of joy and sorrow, purpose and uncertainty”; “kindness”; “compassion”; “empathy”; “the ripples of my actions.” Such things are the cornerstones of learning to cope well with stress and challenges. Mark’s words make it very clear that he is not a historian, or someone proficient in English, who happens to be a teacher. No. Mark is first and foremost a teacher who just happens to be competent in history and English. Next time you hear about some nonsensical new law passed in a state legislature telling teachers how to do their job, ponder those thoughts.

Effective coping requires you to focus on what you do, not on what you think, and not on the emotions you feel. How often have you said, “I’m so down, so depressed. I’ve got to get happier, get rid of this sadness about things. I’ve got to think more positively about things.” Another not uncommon comment therapists hear is, “I get too anxious. I’ve got to get rid of this anxiety.” In these comments, note how the focus is on emotions and feelings. This focus completely ignores the fact that these emotional states and feelings are symptoms; they are not the problem.

According to Dr. Michael Church: “Our thoughts and feelings are simply thoughts and feelings. They are not reality. Just because I feel or think I am a loser does not make me a loser. Just because I have been rejected does not make me a reject. The bottom line is, I am what I do. I am not defined by my thoughts and feelings, and I am not likely to get out of depression or any other emotional dilemma by simply thinking or feeling my way out. At some point, I need to change my behaviors which need to be aligned with my core values. If I am not living in environments corresponding with my value systems, then it is not realistic for me to be happy.”

 Emotions like anger and anxiety can be particularly troubling and even disabling. The question is, what kinds of actions can you take when you feel overwhelmed by such emotions. To help guide yourself in this process, it’s important to remember that emotions can be a warning sign that something other than the emotion needs to change—like an abusive marriage or a toxic friendship. Anxiety can be a signal that you are not prepared for a situation and might best prepare for it. Preparation may not alleviate all your anxiety, but it will give you confidence that you can perform well in spite of the anxiety. Also, keep in mind that “letting it all out” is not a good strategy. Psychological research shows that it’s not wise to “get your anger out.” Smashing things when you’re upset, for example, may actually make you angrier. So, it’s important to use this coping method with caution. If you’re going to talk to someone about a conflict, make sure you’re working on developing a solution, not just on venting or exploding emotionally.

Another important thing to consider is whether your emotions are helpful or unhelpful. Most folks have a tendency to label strong emotional feelings like anger and anxiety as bad, a sign of a psychological weakness. Suppose, however, you’re witnessing someone’s rights being violated, or you are in an unhealthy situation. Your anger can be helpful in such cases because it might give you the courage you need to take a stand or make a change. If, on the other hand, your anger is causing distress or hurting your relationships, you need to work on actions that reduce the conflict. Some examples: (1) Express your concerns using “I,” not “you” statements. “I’m upset that you bring the office home with you,” is less threatening than, “You don’t care about spending any time with me or the kids.” (2) Identify the situations that bring on your emotions and work on simple solutions. What makes you nervous? Long lines, traffic jams? Being late? Your kids’ messy rooms? Your partner is late for dinner most nights? Relatively simple solutions could be to restructure your day when possible: Shop at off-peak hours; take a different route to work; leave earlier for appointments; close the kids’ doors; schedule dinner later. (3) Exercise regularly. (4) Learn and practice relaxation methods through deep breathing, progressive muscle relaxation, and meditation. (5) Remind yourself that is not essential for you to win all arguments. Life is not a zero-sum game. Learn to compromise, take timeouts, and treat others with respect and empathy.

Remember how you are defined. You are not defined as “someone who feels anxious whenever I am in an uncomfortable situation.” You are defined as “someone who avoids controversy and confrontation whenever I feel anxious.” You must, therefore, work on modifying your avoidance behaviors in situations where they are inappropriate.

In this age of unbridled self-preoccupation, it is easy to offend others. I once heard a politician say: “I’m offended by this, and I’m offended by my colleagues that are offended by what we’re doing.” That’s a whole lot of offended! When you cut through the convoluted nonsense and self-focused drivel in this statement, you’re left with a frightened, self-centered person who is unable to confront a stressful situation in a constructive way. How about you? Are you regularly offended? Do you use it as an avoidance strategy? Is that how you want to go through life – mired in a swamp of avoidance and denial, unable to be flexible so you can adjust and improve? Do you want to be a servant to your fears and anxieties – unguided by a system of values, with a loss of direction that creates ambivalence about your worth?

Cassie would answer those questions with a resounding “No!” A work colleague’s actions offended her but she did not avoid confronting the situation in a constructive way. Cassie heard via the office grapevine that Baker, a colleague, was spreading a rumor that Cassie had taken a shortcut and “doctored” some figures in preparing a progress report for an ongoing project. Cassie was infuriated. She told a friend, “I have never been so offended in my life. That SOB is calling me a crook!” Cassie could have used Baker’s upsetting and untrue affront against her integrity in an avoidance way. That is, to avoid dealing directly with the stress, she could have begun spreading derogatory rumors about Baker. Instead, in front of other colleagues, she confronted Baker and very forcefully issued an ultimatum: “Baker, I am offended by your comments that I took shortcuts in my latest interim report. You know it’s not true and I want you to give me and our colleagues standing here evidence supporting your accusation. Otherwise, I want an apology right now, and admit that you made up that accusation to put me in jeopardy with the bosses. I demand that apology.” Baker’s face showed he was stunned by Cassie’s attack. He proceeded to apologize, and stumbled through an excuse that he “misread some of the figures in your report.” No one present bought it. [Eight months later, when raises and promotions were announced, Cassie’s promotion made her Baker’s immediate supervisor!]

American society is in a time of massive self-preoccupation. People seem ill-prepared to accept the reality of variability in what is right and what is wrong. Bewildered and frustrated, they reject accountability and retreat into the comfort zone of their own needs. This retreat makes them more dependent on others, incapable of critical thinking, and vulnerable to false messages. Their sense of autonomy crumbles; their purposefulness and ability to see meaning in life fade away; and they fail to see how self-destructive their emotion-based actions have become. Frustrated and fearful of abandonment, their only recourse is to lash out – sometimes violently – at others.

The first step in coping with stress is accepting a simple fact: “I am not the primary ingredient in every recipe.”

August 2023 – The Department of Education in Florida announced that the AP Psychology course offered to high-school students is illegal because it includes material related to sexual orientation and gender-identification. The course has been offered since 1993, and about 27,000 students have signed up for it in 2023-24. The problem, however, goes back to a Bill pushed through the Florida legislature by Gov. Ron DeSantis in 2022 that prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in grades k-12.

What is an AP (Advanced Placement) course, and how do colleges use it? In a college curriculum, a course in Introductory Psychology (we will refer to this course as Psych 101) typically serves as a prerequisite for psychology majors to more advanced courses in psychology. Many non-psychology majors also take this course as an elective, or a requirement in a related major (e.g., Sociology, Criminal Justice, and others). If a student has taken an AP Psychology course in high school and received a passing grade, most colleges accept the AP course as the equivalent of taking Psych 101, and give the student three credits. Thus, taking AP Psychology in high school allows students to substitute the AP course for Psych 101 and earn three college credits.

Psych 101 is one of several psychology courses I taught many times over 41 years as a psychology college professor. The course is typically designed to give students an overview of the basic content of the discipline: Biology/Genetics; Sensation/Perception; Consciousness; Learning; Memory/Intelligence; Child/Adolescent Development; Motivation/Emotion; Stress/Coping/Health; Personality; Disorders; Therapy; Social Influences. Most importantly, however, the course is designed to show students how psychologists think about behavior, and how they go about studying it. Thus, students also learn how psychologists use critical thinking and science – data collection, measurement, and research methodology – in the discipline.

Would the course include material on sexual development? Of course. How could we discuss fully many of the topics listed above without alluding occasionally to research on sexuality? Still, this course hardly seems threatening. Why, then, is it perceived as such?          

As we have said many times in this blog, adopting extremist attitudes robs individuals of flexibility, a trait that is essential for effectively coping with stress. In this case, the extreme attitude views any consideration of gender orientation and identification as bad; including it in an AP Psychology course, therefore, makes the course indoctrination, not education. The extreme attitude says that presenting research on such things as homosexuality and transgenders may brainwash students into seeing these behaviors as good choices for themselves. This is inflexible thinking that produces absurd and irrational conclusions – such as, an AP course in Psychology corrupts the values, morality, and healthy development of students. Extremists believe the course advocates some perverse point of view, failing to see that it is simply a course that educates students about the full spectrum of human behavior. Forced to believe that AP Psychology is a form of indoctrination, extremists cannot see that it is they who indoctrinate students by dictating what students can and cannot learn. They fail to see that it is they – not AP Psychology – who rob students of the freedom to make choices based on intellectual curiosity and the desire to learn about psychology. Those with extreme, narrow-minded attitudes want to force students into their extremist thinking. The result is disrespecting students by depriving them of the opportunity to expand their maturing brains, to increase their knowledge and understanding of human dynamics, and to discover how to study behavior by collecting and evaluating data in objective, systematic, and unbiased ways.

You know them: pests, irritators, annoyances, nuisances, pains-in-the-neck (or lower in the anatomy) – troublemakers bask in their self-declared superiority and eagerly display it for all to see. They believe that rules exist for others; that accepted policies are no good because they know a better way; that your opinions are misguided. When there is a problem to be solved that requires team players who are willing to cooperate and communicate with others in an atmosphere of mutual respect, if you throw in the troublemaker, everything falls apart and the problem expands.

The troublemaker is no more than a bully. Unlike the 8^th grader who bullies victims with physical attacks, however, the adult troublemaker is more figurative in bullying actions, as noted above. But why? What needs and purposes are being served in those who seem to dedicate their lives to oppositional behavior? The answers to that question are many, and the reasons probably vary from person to person.

At its simplest level, the chronic troublemaker may be modeling a significant adult figure from earlier years. In that case, however, we might expect the behavior to weaken as it consistently leads to negative consequences. More likely, therefore, persistent and intense troublemaking services deeper needs; it is almost certainly an avoidance behavior driven by anxiety that threatens to flood the troublemaker with negative emotions. For instance, narcissistic troublemaking can occur because of shame, jealousy, and envy toward others; agitation toward others is an expression of superiority and dominance, allowing the troublemaker to maintain their narcissism by avoiding the jealous resentment they feel. Another dynamic might be insecurity from intense inner-feelings of incompetency and inadequacy, and being a pest helps them avoid facing those self-doubts. Closely related would be the troublemaker who has unresolved issues from childhood centering on fear of rejection, abandonment, and loneliness. This emotional starvation makes them unable to trust others, and this distrust is replaced by anger; to service their anger, others must be annoyed and dominated. Also, anger-based retribution and vengeance provide a safety valve allowing the troublemaker to avoid the fear of being emotionally deserted and lost.

Whatever the individual dynamics, bullying troublemakers all have in common unresolved emotional conflicts that rob them of feeling secure and wanted. Unable to face those conflicts, they take a fear-based approach to challenges in their life that makes them avoid social interactions expressing humility and empathy. They are so threatened by the possibility of having to face their fears, they are left only with the option of avoiding productive interactions, not only with others, but also with themselves.